Saturday, July 23, 2016

SUMMER 2016 MAILBAG


Editor's Note: The Readers have received heavy e-mail traffic this summer about one of the phrases we've been using lately. Since the following inquiry is typical, we thought we ought to supply a more public answer, in case others had the same question.

PL or Readers

You keep praising priests who have "been through the system" over the sede's. What system are you talking about? Do you mean a tridentine seminary? How can that be if they don't exist? (Don't get angry. This is NOT an attack. I want to understand what you mean.)

The only time we become angry is when we learn of additional abuses at the hands of the money-grubbing cult masters and their malformed "clergy." (Our latest ire-raising investigation concerns "The Case of the Purloined Chalice." We hope to report on it in the future.)

Our correspondent's question's a good one, and from the volume of mail on the same topic, it's worth a dedicated post, particularly since we hadn't considered the possibility the phrase wasn't self-explanatory.

By "the system," we mean day-to-day Roman polity, the Latin Church's distinct way of managing ecclesiastical affairs, which is only understood by having participated in — by having gone through — the institutional Church. Contrary to what the cult fibbers want you to believe, not everything was lost after the Vatican II catastrophe. A large portion of the bureaucratic mores and folkways —many of which had been transmitted directly and without interruption from ancient imperial times — survived. (Bergie's out to purge those now.)

Those who operate in the post-conciliar Church may no longer be Christian, but they still possess, in virtue of their membership, time-honored know-how and institutional memory. For informed students of organizational theory and behavior, our assertion will come as no surprise.

The sense of how things are done in the Church, an important part of ecclesiastical Romanitas, cannot be mastered without direct and prolonged contact with the Church quâ institution. A formation outside that sphere spawns babbling defectives, who resort to making it all up as they go along. Despite flabby arguments to the contrary, no amount of independent study can compensate for the missing concrete experience.

For that reason, insofar as all the U.S. cults' make-believe "seminaries" have never been part of "the system," none of their malformed completers can be said to possess the appropriate background necessary for the authentic practice of the Catholic priesthood and episcopacy. Therefore, in addition to lacking a commission from the Church, these outsiders haven't the essential cultural profile of a Roman Catholic churchman. The only men in Traddilandia, then, who've "been through the system" are the FSSP, the large majority of SSPX along with many of their former members, and ex-Novus Ordo priests and seminarians who have returned to tradition. Tradistanis don't count!

At this point, the question demanding an answer is whether the senior sede cult kingpins can be regarded as having "been through the system." Right off the bat, Pivvy must definitely be excluded since he's a home-grown product of the ever-alien, completely marginalized CMRI. What then remains is to assess whether Dannie, Big Don, and Phony Tony can be thought of as having "been through the system." To be sure, their online biographies could argue for that status. 
Wee Dan began his priestly studies in 1965 in the Detroit minor seminary and then fled to the Cistercians before he scampered off to Écône, at last receiving, according to nine priests and at least two eyewitnesses, one-handed priestly orders in 1976. Bonehead Tone has a marginally better record, managing to get (only heaven knows how) a bachelor's from the Milwaukee seminary in 1973, spending a couple years with the Cistercians, and then somehow making it into Écône, with priestly ordination in 1977.  Big Don, a.k.a. "Tradzilla," outshines the dullard Checkie: he graduated cum laude in classics from the Brooklyn seminary college in 1971, entered Écône in the same year, and was finally ordained a priest in 1975.
But a closer analysis of their downmarket curricula vitæ is in order.

We'll start with the dumbest of the Terrible Trio. In his Wikipedia bio (autobiography?), there is absolutely no mention of Deficient Dan's receiving an undergraduate credential, so we may infer he lacks a degree. Furthermore, by his own admission, he had to use Waldo Sweet's much maligned textbook to get enough Latin to squeak into Écône. (Question: Why didn't he use Scanlon and Scanlon? Too challenging?)

He was therefore an academic outsider when he arrived in Switzerland, where, in Dan's time there, the archbishop was struggling to cobble together something that remotely resembled a Catholic seminary. Consequently, we may safely conclude that Li'l Daniel, with his exceedingly  spotty formation, was never really "in the system." At best, the Wee One had his runny nose pressed against the steamy window as he longingly peered in from the outside on his tippy-toes. 

In contrast to "One Hand's" lack of credentials, Checkie's and the Donster's undergraduate leaving-certificates from diocesan seminaries would seem to qualify them as having been "in the system." The considered short answer, however, is, not quite. Tony Baloney was just 21-22 years of age when he completed his seventies-era Milwaukee schooling, and Big Don probably about the same when he finished his bachelor's.

To really have been "in the system," you've got to devote several adult years on the inside, internalizing its ways, absorbing the organizational lore. Donnie and the Cheeseball, however, spent their formative early adult years only at newly established Écône and in the nascent U.S. SSPX, when things were still very much in flux. 

As Bp. Andrés Morello, a former SSPXer, has written of his own experiences in those early years, the quality of formation he received back in the magnificent Argentine seminary he attended before entering the SSPX was far superior to that offered at Écône. From what we've learned, it was only in the late 1970s and early 1980s that the seminary found its firm footing. (That's why the younger members of the "Nine" who studied at Écône are so much better prepared academically and culturally.) Accordingly, we're forced to conclude that Tony Baloney and Big Don, while light years ahead of "One-Hand Dan," cannot themselves be regarded as having "been through the system." At best, we may say they had some contact with it, but not enough to transform them into anything like genuine Catholic clergy.

What, you may be asking at this point, is the practical value of all this for the morally centered, cult-hating trad, lay or "clerical"?

In our view, there are two lessons.

The first is for the lay leaders of independent chapels looking for a priest or hoping to replace malformed cult "clergy": interview only former Novus Ordites who have embraced tradition, and never consider any candidate from one of the hyper-inferior sede vocational-training programs.  If you're concerned about the validity of these superior candidates' orders, don't be. There are many such clergy available who have been conditionally ordained by traditional bishops who possess multiple lineages; therefore, the threat of invalidity is greatly mitigated. Remember: the cult kings can boast of but one line, that of Thục. And as in the case of "One Hand Dan," a possible defect may have vitiated the validity of holy orders coming from him.

The second lesson is for those "priests" whom Tradzilla has targeted for membership in his new organization (that is, if he ever gets around to founding it as he promised way back in May). Why would they want to submit themselves to all the wacko demands Tradzilla will make on them, if he really hasn't "been through the system"? They're better off signing up for that new Pastor Bonus Forum founded by an ex- Novus Ordo nun who served in the institutional Church for many years (click here.)  Having spent quite a bit of time in Italy, this "Arch-Abbess of Tradistan," who's fluent in Italian, has authentic experience, unlike the amateurish Donster.

All the cult meatheads could learn a lot from her. We wish her every success in her effort to organize sede "clergy" under someone who knows the Roman way of getting things done. Besides, there's a lot of Oedipal angst out there that needs Sister's firm hand.

106 comments:

  1. Obviously "we" can't join the ex nun's forum. Is anyone able to shed some light as to who this lady is? Does she have a web site we can visit? (Thanks for publishing early P L!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She goes by the handle "Peregrine." The only web site we know is here.

      (You're welcome. We had an editorial breakfast today rather than lunch or dinner as usual, so we were able to post early.)

      Delete
    2. I'm familiar with LuxVera from a few years back when she put up a list of recommended trad chapels. I emailed her about some of her choices which I thought ought not be on the site but she let them stay so I never really went back. I didn't know that she was an ex-nun. I'd take her advice with a grain of salt. I also corrected a few addresses but she ignored it, so we went our separate ways.

      Delete
    3. You're right. She doesn't like advice at all, unless it agrees with her. But that only puts her in Big Don's league. It doesn't necessarily disqualify her from organizing trad "priests," who desperately need someone in charge.

      Delete
    4. Thanks to The Reader for the link. (I just had to ask!)[July 23, 2016 at 9:01 PM She goes by the handle "Peregrine." The only web site we know is here.]
      This Lux Vera site has a link to a book, “The Story of Satan & A Visit to Hell.” The author is a Mary Ann Panevska.

      Would it be safe to surmise that this lady is also the head or leader of Pastor Bonus Forum?

      I don’t claim to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier! (After all, I was with the sede’s for too many years how bright can I possibly be? )
      If this is redundant forgive me.

      Delete
  2. Well, I went on her new list and see that SPPX is conspicuous by its absence. She's removed one that I found questionable BUT still has Marshall Roberts in Jacksonville FL. He's the guy who was kicked out of ICK for writing love letters to another seminarian. Think I'll still keep my distance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good idea. But she still might be a better choice than Tradzilla, who doesn't have the best judgment himself.

      Delete
    2. The fact that it is this former nun who must “approve” one’s application to be a member of her forum means that one must RELY on her “judgment” – and is “at the mercy” of that judgment. Perhaps she will SHOW that good judgment – but this has not always been the case. She, for instance, backed the accusations of Ramolla and Droleskey at one time, against an innocent man, basing her decision strictly on HEARSAY. In time, those accusations were proven to be FALSE, but she has never recanted her erroneous position – at least, not publicly. And in an e-mail exchange that she had with someone sometime back (regarding those accusations), she stubbornly held to her position, even though her logic was thoroughly TRASHED (and she was “caught in a lie”). (Copy the following to see Lay Pulpit’s article about that exchange):
      http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com/2012/06/eleventh-and-twelfth-commandments.html

      Her conduct in that e-mail exchange does not bode well for her “sincerity.” If she would now come out and publicly admit that she was wrong, we might have more faith in her intentions. But, until that happens, we are very reluctant to support any scheme of hers. She would need not only to make a public admittance, but to APOLOGIZE to the man whom Ramolla and Droleskey maligned as well. This would go a long way toward demonstrating that she had true HUMILITY, and that she was organizing her website for the “right” reasons (and not out of pride, or out of the desire for notoriety and adulation). Until then, we at Lay Pulpit will “withhold judgment.”

      Delete
    3. We understand your reasoning, Watcher. Our point, however, is that between the Arch-Abbess of Tradistan and Tradzilla, the choice is a no-brainer if you're talking about experience in the institutional Church.

      Big Sis beats the Donster hands down in every category. So if you're a traddie "priest," you've got no other choice but to join up with her group and reject Don's invitation. (That is, if he ever gets around to founding his new group. He may be scared stiff at having to compete with this intimidating, more savvy rival for sacerdotal loyalty.)

      Delete
    4. Yes indeed! My last comment notwithstanding, you're right: she's a better alternative than the Donster monster!

      Delete
    5. Response to The Watcher July 24, 2016 at 2:42 PM – you write:
      “The fact that it is this former nun who must “approve” one’s application to be a member of her forum means that one must RELY on her “judgment” – and is “at the mercy” of that judgment.”

      I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. If you read the application form these priests must fill out in order to be considered for her forum, you will see they must provide their real name and specific data about their ordination date, etc. I “assume” if they are accepted, their posts will be anonymous. However, their identity will be known by this woman. Sadly, I don’t trust most trads, especially most of the priests. Imagine the control and potential extortion material this woman can collect on these men if indeed any join and start to truthfully discuss their experience, even if they can post anonymously. If anyone does join you can rest assured there will be a plant or spy or two who will report back to the respective priests/bishops being discussed, and identities will be exposed anyway, the trad world is a small world. These bishops are able to maintain control over their minions simply by indoctrinating their priests and seminarians and significant laymen to tattle on each other.

      I do feel sorry for these priests regardless of how ignorant, nasty and misinformed they are. For the most part the younger ones were formed by the older ones and these youngsters probably don’t know any better than to perpetrate the anomalies of their masters. However, a forum of this nature more than likely will add fuel to the fire. There has to be a better way but alas, I can’t figure out a way.

      Delete
    6. Brilliant analysis of the supreme advantage the Arch-Abbess will have over these dumb men. She's far more clever than they are, and knows how to use "Big Data."

      Delete
    7. Thanks for the comments Reader. Another point to be made, does anyone in their right mind think any of these men will listen to or take under advisement anything a woman has to offer? Regardless of her credentials, these guys most definitely have no use for women except to cook, clean and serve them. And of course to berate and humiliate them for immodest dress. And in the case of those women who might have a little $$$ to squander, of course, they will serve a significant use, but not be taken seriously in any intellectual or academic capacity. There is no doubt in my mind a woman could have a superior advantage over much of the current lot of traddie priests and bishops who teach or taught, and formed and control these younger men.

      I am not as generous as some of you in as much as I do not regard these men as validly ordained priests. But, to argue in their favor, assuming they are valid, I should think the ones who have need to vent or who might question the anomalies of their respective superiors and situations need not a forum to vent, but perhaps a good friend to talk to. A one on one relationship to a person they can trust implicitly and speak their mind and feelings without fear of betrayal, reprisal, ridicule, judgment, condemnation, and threat of eternal damnation. These men who still have some independent thought processes and realize something is not right in Dodge, who realize they need to get their ducks lined up straight, won’t achieve such in the current environments they exist in. Ideally, an objective and fair outsider not infected with the chaos and confusion of the trad movement would be a good start.

      Delete
  3. LuxVera seems to be a misnomer then - apart from her Latin knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed it is, given her championing those Tradistani scumbags. We would choose for the site's name LuxVana, as in A. Stewart's Latin translation of Ossian's address to the sun in Carthon:

      At mihi est tua lux vana (inutilis) — "but to me thy light is in vain (useless)".

      Still, the Arch-Abbess is a better option for traddie "priests" than Big Don. She's got ecclesiastical chops plus she's educated.

      Delete
  4. Really! When I saw CMRI plastered on her list of "good" chapels & no mention of SPPX plus having Marshall Roberts, I was wondering how LuxVera is that?!! But I understand & believe you about her being better than the cults.

    btw I go to an SPPX church & am edified by the priests & people. The sermons are centered on the Gospel & RARELY do they stray into tangents. To me we SHOULD be wanting to be with the Church in Rome, shouldn't we? For now we are not. I think that Bishop Fellay knows more than I do, or any of the other pundits out there in cyberspace, so, so far he hasn't capitulated & signed on the dotted line. Therefore I will stick with the Society, keep my eyes peeled, & give God the public worship He deserves & yes, demands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given her knowledge and education, Big Sis might just be the one to knock some sense into people like Pivvy and Dannie. She should lose no time in knocking their heads together.

      Delete
  5. I checked out Lay Pulpit where they corrected 'cucina clerical'. Actually it shouldn't even be cucina clericale. It's coming from the 'laymen's kitchen' into the clerics' DINING ROOM. I don't know what that'd be in Italian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'd say, dalla cucina dei laici per la sala da pranzo dei chierici. A bit long, though, don't you think? That's why we like "Meals for Heels."

      Delete
  6. Hi PL

    A very interesting article.

    As to Pivvy having no education,we overheard someone at St Mikes telling a group that he had his training directly from Heaven.Talk about a joke.

    We were told months ago about a young man who had visited Omaha in the view of entering and delayed for sometime.His "priest" in Michigan gave direct instructions that the "bishop" did not want a coward.Can you believe such talk.This young man was discerning that what he saw was not right and in time gave the idea away.As a matter of sadness,he converted to Orthodoxy.

    CMRI and MHTS are a scam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, are those people off their rockers! Dyed in the wool cult maniacs.

      As for the young man, he did the brave and right thing. Orthodoxy is at least Christian and has valid orders. The sede cults are a malignant imitation and, as in the case of "One Hand Dan," there's possible doubt of validity. Moreover, Orthodox bishops from the main branches enjoy a real formation and have been vetted before receiving orders.

      Delete
    2. "He did the brave and right thing" by joining a false religion? If you consider the "cult" a false religion too, then he's on his way to Hell in either case. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Or perhaps you believe the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but can be found elsewhere in varying degrees?

      Hey, is this Craig the textbook guy, or Bergoglio the apostate "pope"?

      Delete
    3. First of all, Orthodoxy is not a "false religion". It's members are dissidents, but not heretics or pagans. The Church has always regarded the Orthodox as only being in schism.

      Seccondly, the sede cults are not the Catholic Church nor do they subsist in the Catholic Church either, so there's no salvation there.

      The young man's embrace of Orthodoxy after seeing the horrors of a trad cult would seem to us to indicate he may be "joined to the Soul of the Church by charity and that implicit desire of joining the Church which is inseparable from the explicit desire to do God's will" (Attwater).

      Delete
    4. I believe they dissent on contraception, divorce & remarriage, the papacy, and the Immaculate Conception. That would put them beyond schism, well into
      heresy.

      Delete
    5. But they have never been declared heretics. BTW, their Marian devotion surpasses that of the West.

      Delete
    6. @ Anonymous July 27, 2016 at 6:03 PM

      Do you actually know what subsistit in means, i.e., in scholastic theology? The Suppositum, that which subsists, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek hypóstasis, a special case of esse, being. It is being under the form of a independent subject. Esse can be anything, an accident has esse, but only a substance subsists.
      As unity belongs to the nature of the Church, there can be only one Church - much like, in the realm of Angels, Gabrielitas can only be found in Gabriel, while humanity is individuated in many persons.

      Nobody has ever denied that elements of the one true Church, i.e. the Sacraments, can be found in dissident churches.

      Delete
    7. 1. The Orthodox have never been declared heretical. Isn't anyone who openly denies a dogma ipso facto a heretic, Craig? They openly deny the primacy and Infallibiliy of the papacy. If I openly deny the Immaculate Conception, I'm not a heretic unless declared such? I hope you didn't edit textbooks like this; no wonder public schools are turning out imbeciles!


      2. Schismatics are members of a false sect. See Pope Pius XII, "mystici corporis" #22:
      Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed

      Hence the pope teaches that to be a member of the Mystical Body you must be (a) baptized (b) profess the true faith (excludes heretics) (c) not separate themselves from the unity of the Body (Schismatics are excluded) and (d) not excluded by legitimate authority (excludes those excommunicated). Got that Craig? So even if the Orthodox were not heretics (they are) but Schismatics, they are still not part of the True Church and therefore a false sect.

      3. To Tarquinas, I can only conclude that you must be a textbook proof reader too! Maybe Craig's successor in the mighty Ohio public school system? Elements of the Church avail you nothing outside the One True Church. Would having 99% of a car engine allow your car to be mobile, or do you need all of the parts of the working engine? This is what made John Paul the Great Apostate kiss the Koran, because it has "elements of truth" in it. By the same logic, he should kiss the Satanic Bible, that contains some truth too!

      The young man denied some truths of Faith to join the heretical Orthodox. This means he is not in good faith and your citation to Attwater is inapposite. Pitt his soul and pray for him.

      Craig, my son was thinking of becoming one of three occupations: a neurosurgeon, a corporate lawyer, or a textbook proof reader for the Ohio public schools. I told him to try for one of the first two because the intellectual vigor need for the last is daunting! He'd need to graduate valedictorian from Harvard or another Ivy League school and have an encyclopedic knowledge of Latin, Canon Law, theology, philosophy and a host of other disciplines. He might be a genius, but he can't compare to Craig Toth!

      I hope I advised him correctly!

      Delete
    8. Anon, 7/28 4:15.

      Don't blame the Readers or Tarquinius for reciting fact. Take your objections up with the historical Church for never condemning the Eastern Orthodox Churches separated from Rome as heretics. BTW, you might want to inform yourself about the Church's repeated attempts at reunion.

      All that's wanting for union is that the Orthodox take into account the Western theological developments of the past 12 centuries and the Biblical findings of the Petrine office, among other things. But let's all wait until we get a true Pope and cleanse the Church of Modernists, shall we?

      Delete
    9. No, Craig, we shall not. I exposed you as the contemptible little man who denigrates the alleged lack of education of traditional priests, and you couldn't pass "Theology 101." Your comment above at 7/27 @ 10:12 PM has you declare "First of all, Orthodoxy is not a "false religion". It's members are dissidents, but not heretics or pagans. The Church has always regarded the Orthodox as only being in schism"

      I have proven that schismatics are NOT part of the Mystical Body of Christ as per the teaching of Pope Pius XII. Therefore, they ARE a false religion.

      Now, how can you expect anyone to believe you when you deem SGG a "cult" if you don't understand "schism"?

      Lack of education? Physician (Textbook Proof-Reader), heal (proof-read) thyself, Craig old-boy!

      Delete
    10. Sorry, you poor soul. You exposed nothing and you haven't "proved" anything. (You need to get control of your terms.) We recommend study the Church's historic teaching on the Eastern dissidents, who, contrary to your assertion above are not "heretical." They are only in schism (which is indeed gravely wrong, but not heretical). As Tarquinius pointed out, they possess the elements of the true Church, so their religion cannot be a false religion.

      Delete
    11. Oh, Craig! What a pseudo-educated dolt! I was never intellectually gifted enough to proof-read textbooks, but unlike you, I can understand basic theology just fine.

      Pope Pius XII clearly stated that Schismatics are outside the Mystical Body of Christ in "Mystici Corporis" paragraph # 22. They are a false religion. "Elements of the True Church"? We could say same of Satanists. They believe in God and Satan. Some even obtain valid orders for the purpose of desecrating the Eucharist. Do these elements make them "not a false religion"? How many elements are necessary not to be false? Please provide one pre-Vatican 2 theologian who teaches that the Eastern Orthodox are not a false religion on account of their "elements."

      If you can't, it's because they don't exist and you are a moron who can't admit he's wrong!

      Here are some citations that prove my point:

      "Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God."
      Pope Gregory XVI, "Summo Iugiter Studio" para # 5 May 27, 1832

      If Schismatics are not a false religion, why would they not go to Heaven Craig?

      "Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head founded on the See of Peter." Pope Pius VI "Charitas" para # 32 April 13, 1791.

      Ask yourself Craig, are the Orthodox in unity with the See of Peter? No Craig, they are not! Therefore, Pope Pius VI says they are not in the Church of Christ. Since the Church of Christ is The Catholic Church (The One True Church), they are not in it which makes then a false religion! It so simple even a textbook proof reader can understand!!!

      Theologian Tanquerey teaches, "The separated Churches, in fact, cannot be the true Church of Christ: thus the Eastern Schismatic Church and the Protestant Churches have kept neither the primacy of the Roman Pontiff nor visible unity." "Dogmatic Theology" 1:132.

      Now Craig, prove me wrong with relevant citations to appropriate authorities. Use that erudition and training from Textbook Proof-Reader School! You who make fun of the alleged lack of education of Traditional priests--prove me wrong! A janitor with a GED has more intellect than you! (And probably needed more learning than a textbook proof-reader for the Ohio Public Schools because he made more money!)

      I'm waiting Craig!

      Delete
    12. "As for the young man, he did the brave and right thing."

      He became an apostate by abandoning Catholicism. It doesn't matter if you say the CMRI are a cult etc., he belonged to what he thought was Catholicism. He must have know full well the Orthodox are schismatics and their Church is a false one.

      Is the Orthodox Church a true Church? Branch Theory? EENS?

      Preposterous! I can't believe my eyes.

      I wonder if Toth should be accused for heresy and apostasy, for approving of apostasy.

      Delete
    13. Well, the concept of a falsa religio seems to rather modern, in fact, I believe, it became a terminus technicus within Protestant theology. And even they knew that one can only speak of a false religion improperly, as a false religion is no religion at all.
      St. Thomas Aquinas places the virtue of religion, obviously, in his IIa-IIae as annexed to the virtue of justice. The classical opposed vice to religion (by excess) is superstitio, not some "false religion".

      The Salmanticenses give a really useful overview in the matter with some solid definitions:
      "Religion is the virtue, by which we render the cult owed to God as the first principle.
      A false religion is that, which worships several Gods or one God in a unowed way without the true faith."

      Now, one might still accuse the Eastern schismatics as being a false religion, if schism were a sin against (true) faith. But that is not the case, as can be seen in any manual or in the Summa Theologiae. Schism is a sin against charity: "Non in credendo, sed in communicando" (Billot). It is especially a sin against unity. Unity consists of two parts: The unity of members with each other (connexio seu communicatio membrorum Ecclesiae ad invicem) and the communion or ordering of all member to their head (ordo omnium membrorum ad unum caput). The caput, of course, is the Roman Pontiff, and a short real definition of schism is nothing else than: Subesse renuit Summo Pontifici.

      It is clear that this is the grave sin of the Eastern Schismatics or dissidents, which does not make them a false religion, but ... schismatics. That is why they have always been called that way.

      If they had not true elements of the true Church, then they would possess those elements as if by right, but that cannot be the case.

      I believe it is quite difficult for a sedevacantist to accuse anybody of schism, as they to possess all the notae of true schismatics themselves.

      Delete
    14. You can quibble all you want about the technicalities of "false religion," the fact is you have approved of apostasy and a host of heresies along with it.

      Theologians say that even though they aren't officially called heretics, they still are, since it is almost impossible to have "pure schism," and the schismatics indeed are heretics for they deny several dogmas.

      This is all despicable and things you find in the Novus Ordo.

      Delete
    15. Nice try, but you fail! (Textbook proof-reader too?)

      Let me spell it out:
      1. There is but One True Church of Christ, which is the Mystical Body of Christ.

      2. Those outside that One True Church are FALSE religions as taught by Tanquerey quoted above, "(Schismatics) cannot be the true Church of Christ." If they are not true, they are false as they do not lead one to Heaven. Corporate salvation through false religions was introduced by Vatican 2. Unheard of pre-Vatican 2. One must be saved within the Catholic Church (EENS) and Baptism of Desire places one within the Catholic Church where alone salvation can be found. Are you claiming Schismatics --as Schismatics ---can be saved? That's heresy.

      3. The Branch Theory has been condemned.

      4. The popes clearly teach that salvation cannot be found in schismatic sects because they are separated from the Mystical Body of Christ. If you are not part of the Mystical Body, you are a false religion because you refuse submission to lawful authority. They are also heretical in denying the Immaculate Conception, the primacy and infallibility of the papacy, etc. They also teach false doctrine.

      Conclusion: Schismatics are separate from the True Church. If there is only One True Church, and you are not part of it (Schismatics), you are a false religion.

      Sedes are only Schismatics if they recognize Francis and refuse submission (think Siscoe and Salza)--which they do NOT. R&R has a schismatic attitude even if they can't be actual Schismatics as there is no true pope at this time.

      NOTHING you have written claims that Schismatics are part of the True Church, due to "elements." This is heretical V2 ecclesiology. It flies in the face of all prior teaching.

      Go proof-read with Craig!!

      Delete
    16. How about St. Augustine when he taught that, "Outside the Catholic Church the true sacrifice cannot be found," or St. Leo the Great when he said, "Elsewhere [that is, outside the Catholic Church] there is neither an approved priesthood nor true sacrifices."

      So yes, God hates the "sacrifices" of heretics and schismatics and hold his nose, because they have no right to perform them. It would be like someone stealing you car. Stealing it is one thing, but driving it around makes them even more guilty

      Delete
    17. Dear Reader,

      It's hard to believe you are praising a presumably Catholic man's decision to join the Eastern schismatics. Theologians do say that the Eastern schismatics are much closer to Catholicity than most non-Catholic bodies, but they add that this makes the danger of perversion more serious. By perversion, they refer of course to joining oneself to the schismatic sect or accepting its false claims or false teachings.

      You can find the matter discussed in detail in Rev. Ignatius Szal's doctoral dissertation, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics: A Historical Synopsis and a Commentary. (Canon Law Studies, no. 264, Catholic University of America, 1948). I will paste some quotations from this book as a separate comment.

      Whether or not schismatic schools are better than traditionalist schools is beside the point. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but a malformed mind is preferable to the loss of an eternal soul to schism or heresy. It's a happier condition to have Down's syndrome and to have the Catholic faith than to be brilliant and well-educated without it. And if the education of the Eastern schismatics doesn't lead them to the Catholic Church, how good can it really be? Or rather, what is it good for?

      It seems you have fallen prey to idolatry of learning and of the human intellect. Think about what St. Thomas Aquinas said:

      "On the feast of St Nicholas the following year he was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation which so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more, leaving his great work, the Summa theologiae, unfinished. To Brother Reginald's expostulations he replied, 'The end of my labours is come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.' "

      If you are determined to say that a Catholic can sometimes be right to join a schismatic sect, then your position is at least as lawless and offensive to the Catholic religion as that of the traditionalists whom you criticize so freely, thoroughly, and persistently. This makes it seem that for you, any stick is good enough to beat them with. Why care about the sedevacantism debate, the arguments for supplied jurisdiction, etc. if Catholics are free to trample the whole law by joining a schismatic sect because it has better schools?

      Delete
    18. But, Mr. Hoyle, the entire situation of the Church is now lawless, and it may well be that the situation is so grave that all positive laws may well be suspended. We say that now the only guide is conscience, and we assume that the young man has acted according to his informed conscience. We didn't counsel that action, but we don't condemn it either understanding that he may have had no other alternative living as he does in the bleak wasteland of Tradistan.

      Delete
    19. It makes sense that many ecclesiastical laws may be set aside on account of the grave crisis in which we are living, but there is no reason to say that they are all suspended. Ecclesiastical laws promote the common good in ordinary circumstances, so to set one of them aside one must argue that it has become harmful on account of extraordinary circumstances. It is not credible that our situation, or any conceivable situation, would cause them all to become harmful.

      The prohibition against joining a schismatic sect, declared or undeclared, is not merely a point of ecclesiastical law, but has its roots in divine positive law and in the constitution of the Church. Anyone who joins a schismatic sect does what is objectively wrong, and as the young man you mention had formerly professed himself a Catholic, it cannot be said that he acted rightly according to his informed conscience. This young man had spent time in a traditionalist seminary, so presumably he was literate, decently well instructed, and was in contact with many people who professed the Catholic faith; thus the only reasonable assumption is that he willfully left the Roman Catholic Church to join a schismatic sect, and willfully denied the doctrines of papal primacy and infallibility. If one were to search for some excuse for him, it would have to be that his conscience was misinformed, e.g. he thought the Eastern schismatics were really Roman Catholics, or that Catholics are allowed to participate in their sacred rites, or that he went insane, or something else along those lines, which of course is probably not what really happened.

      Everyone has another alternative to joining a schismatic group: to stay at home. I think even the most vehement anti-home-aloners will agree with that. Whatever may be the right response to the present crisis, I think it's clear that many people are led astray because they insist on having somewhere to go to receive the sacraments.

      You said “the sede cults are not the Catholic Church,” but clearly their participants intend to maintain Catholic faith and unity. They argue that their chapel arrangements have at least the implicit approval of the lawgiver, or at least that laymen are within their rights to request the sacraments from traditionalist priests. I don't suppose you really believe there is no salvation for traditionalist chapel attendees, since among other things you have said that John Lane and John Daly are stars, so you really should correct yourself on this matter or clarify what you mean by “there's no salvation there”.

      I think there is plenty of room for Catholics today to take a wrong practical course of action without falling into heresy or schism. The present crisis is very confusing and neither the Church nor the human race was designed for each person to be his own guide. Most people (including me) are simply not equipped to figure it all out and are doing very well indeed to hold on to the Catholic faith and to what they think is Catholic unity.

      Delete
  7. Training directly from heaven.HaHaHA.Just typical of your CMRI cult supporter.Yes,outstanding article this week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We had a good laugh, too.

      There is such a thing as directly infused knowledge, but the massive ignorance of the cult masters is proof they weren't on the receiving end.

      BTW, thanks for the kind words.

      Delete
  8. You should provide the training.
    End of story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are saddened when we think of the tens of millions of dollars trads have wasted on these awful cult vocational schools. If people had been wise, they should have sponsored the foundation of an independent "seminary" to train young men for the traditional priesthood. There are non-cult professionals available who could have developed the curriculum with full scope and sequence, had textbooks reprinted, staffed the classrooms, managed the institution, and assured high standards by producing appropriate measurement instruments. Under the governance of a board, the worst abuses would have been stopped.

      But instead, all that money was put in the hands of ego-centric amateurs without the slightest idea of what they're doing.

      Delete
  9. Would the non-cult professionals please come out and start something. I agree that money has been wasted. Even SSPX schools have no board [the affairs of a certain school bring back bad memories].

    Medically, it is like going to the conventional way whereas the way to go is to the naturopath.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many who will help, but they require firm commitment from the laity. They don't want remuneration, but they don't want their efforts to go for naught if some cult master decides to object and anathematize those who support such a venture.

      Delete
  10. In short, we are all trapped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, barring some extraordinary intervention.

      However, there is a note of hope. Efforts are underway in certain quarters to recruit trained Novus Ordites whose fealty to tradition has earned them the enmity of their Modernist superiors. This cadre of priests, completely unaffiliated with the cults, has the potential to become the faculty of a new house of studies in the years to come. Time will tell.

      Delete
    2. Yes. From the protestant born one who is reading through the archives, the one with the Lutheran seminary teacher grandfather no longer on earth and likely not in heaven.

      Am 'working' on my relatives. All are nearer death than birth and reading material has been provided.

      All my uncles have Ph.D.'s as does my brother; they can think and are materially successful but being closer rather than farther away from death brings lucidity they will probably not acknowledge to me overtly.

      Delete
  11. We know another young man who also converted to Orthodoxy after some time in the CMRI cult and had visited the"seminary"He will not talk about what he saw and heard at Omaha.Reader/PL have you heard other sad stories emailed to you in private?There must be something very bad there.Any details for readers of this website to know please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We cannot reveal details, but, yes, we know personally of cases such as this one. Smart young men want to have nothing to do with with the pitiful CMRI or the Dolanite-Sabornite cults. Their disgust with the low intellectual standards at MD is palpable, and the brightest ones who still want to have some kind of ecclesiastical career go back to the N.O. universities for training.

      We won't say it's sad, because it would have been sadder still to waste these gifted young men's talents in the substandard sede seminaries with their educationally-challenged faculty. At least now they can learn from qualified professors and develop their God-given talents.

      Delete
  12. Interesting article.Pivarunas tells people he had the usual seminary formation.Can people please come forward and tell us his background and training.What studies and exams did he sit or was it made up all along.New to the Trad Movement

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone once before commented on his "formation" (LOL). Perhaps that individual could provide some more details.

      Delete
    2. Well, if memory serves right, Piv ran away from home when he was 14 years of age or so and joined the cult at Mount St. Michaels under Francis Schuckardt, who had been a layman. Not only is there no trace of any "seminary formation", but he probably didn't even graduate from High School.

      Francis Schuckhardt had no training in Philosophy or Theology either and certainly wasn't fit to teach anything in his made-up congregation. There was an older priest there at the Mount, so I am told, but he certainly wasn't the wasn't the brightest bulb in the box if he took those guys seriously.

      These people are so far off the mark, they don't even know how to pretend it's the real deal.

      Delete
    3. Huckleberry Finn as sedebishop! Now there's got to be a picaresque novel there somewhere. It's the postmodern "American Dream": rising to the top without any preparation whatsoever.

      Delete
  13. Fr. Cekada has just made a video about the Salza & Siscoe book. It seems they made a gigantic boo boo and Fr. Cekada finished them off. I'm no SGG supporter, but I gotta hand it to Fr. C for this video.

    You Readers praised this book as a paradigm shift and a deathblow against SV and Fr. Cekada et al.

    Here's the link for the video: https://youtu.be/Dmjb5xw72C0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'll wait for S & S's rejoinder, thank you.

      Delete
    2. Last I heard phone tone was suffering from a rare form of bladder cancer--guess hasn't stopped the blabber mouth cancer blathering...or maybe it's all the fresh fruits and vegetables...

      Delete
    3. What for? Since you already read the book, you should know if what Cekada says is true or not.

      He raked S & S over the coals and made mincemeat of their pathetic "book."

      Delete
    4. I think this whole blog is based on the premise that one cannot know if what Cekada says is true or not.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous July 29, 2016 at 6:16 AM

      You are as confused as your metaphors: mincemeat isn't made by raking the ingredients over the coals, nor can malformed Checkie ever compete at the same intellectual level as the formally educated S & S.

      The Cheeseball should leave the debate with S & S in the more able and competent hands of the several laymen who have rallied to the defense of the sede position.

      Delete
    6. S&S are despicable and dishonest to the extreme. They can't even get a basic distinction right. And you think they're highly intelligent and educated? Ha! Theyre the farthest thing from possessing a high intellect. It's an embarrassment.

      Face it Toth: the only reason you support those scumbags is because you have a common enemy in Cekada & co.

      Delete
    7. I think you hate Cekada so much that you haven't even seen the video but will wait until the bumbling duo responds to it and believe them no matter what, since the video is quite devastating.

      Delete
    8. "S&S are despicable and dishonest to the extreme. They can't even get a basic distinction right."

      "I think you hate...The only reason you support those scumbags is because you have a common enemy in Cekada & co."

      S&S are "those scumbags"? Compared to Cekada, Dolan & Sanborn--who can't even get the distinction that they aren't the saviors of Christ's Church or His priesthood, but mere creatures like everyone else and so CAN'T get away w/any lie, thievery, chicanery, deportation, destruction of others' (including children's) reputations, lives, and souls (to get their way & conceal their sexcapades) etc.?

      You need to get a grip before you follow them down the rabbit chute to hell.

      Delete
    9. We've all viewed the video, Anon-7/29-4:58, and, as with all things produced by the malformed Blunderer, we weren't impressed in the least. In no way was it "devastating." It was embarrassing.

      We're waiting for the fun when the big dogs S&S chase that yipping cur away with his tail between his legs. Cheesy will really be sorry he took on opponents way beyond his (intellectual) weight class.

      Delete
    10. 7:57 PM:

      When did I ever say that I approve of or even support Cekada & co? I was merely addressing the issue of SV and S&S's absurd claims.

      Are you able to make distinctions?

      To Toth:

      S&S are so intellectually gifted they cannot distinguish between the crime of heresy and the sin of heresy, so gifted that they do not make any distinctions nor quote any authorities for their claims. They just continue to plow through with the same old thing. They have been told they're wrong but dismiss all correction.

      It is clear you will go with S&S no matter what, no matter how plain wrong they are.

      But i am sure that you do not mean any of your public approval of S&S and their book. It's all just to attack Checkie & co.

      Delete
    11. Why would educated men heed the Cheeseball if he told them they were wrong? How does the guy who perversely mistranslated infallible papal teaching command any attention at all from the literate?

      As for the video as the end-all-be-all rebuttal, we all had a laugh when Checkie called S&S's book a "sprawling polemic mess." The Checkmeister was describing his own error-laced Work of Human Hands, not S & S's closely reasoned exposition!

      One question you must ask yourself: What can't Tony Baloney answer S & S in writing? Why does he resort to amateurish videos? Can't he compete with these obviously better educated men? A side-by-side comparison of his written efforts with those of S & S would end Cheesy's reign of error,

      Delete
    12. S&S have been begging Checkie and other SV's to answer them and address their presumed masterful refutations of SV for a while now. Attention-begging is not something educated men would do.

      So maybe you should ask your newfound buddies S&S why they beg to be answered.

      I didn't say the video was an end-all-be-all, but that he did rake them over the coals.

      Whats wrong with using videos? It's a medium just as writing is. St. Francis de Sales said the voice has more of an impact than the pen does.

      We're in the digital age, after all.

      You can delete the duplicate comment, btw, didn't notice I put it at the bottom first.

      Delete
    13. There's one more point: in this case, you can't argue about Cekada's unreliability, since these things that S&S fumble upon are so basic (sin/crime of heresy) that you need only to consult any preV2 theological manual in English; so, no, you don't even need to know Latin or be a very qualified person to know that, indeed, their whole book is dead on arrival.

      You can even read the Catholic Encyclopaedia to get a good understanding of these things.

      Delete
    14. In fact, mere common sense should tell anyone that their main argument is absurd beyond imagination.

      It would mean that you could never accuse any Protestant of heresy, no matter how much he should tell you that he adamantly rejects transubstantiation or any other Catholic dogma.

      Delete
    15. Also, if you agree with S&S, then you can't even accuse Cekada & co. of all the public sins you accuse them of.

      Delete
    16. Everybody look at my comments to Craig Toth, the erudite Textbook Proof-Reader @ 7/30 6:39. This idiot doesn't even know that Schismatics (Eastern Orthodox) are not part of the RC Church and are therefore a false religion!! Fr. Cekada is Einstein compared to Craig Toth!!

      Delete
    17. 6:53

      You obviously didn't complete the assignment we gave you.

      Delete
    18. You obviously have no answer! How about a proof text, from the Textbook you proof read! Lol!!!!

      Delete
    19. The “bad” news is that S&S will have to waste their valuable time responding to the Checkmeister’s amateur video, but the GOOD news is that the video itself is an pathetically crafted pile of dung that will be an embarrassment for Tony every time it is seen. So, all the anonymous morons here who are defending Checkie’s video are only drawing more attention to it, thus heaping even MORE embarrassment on both Tony and his supporters.

      Delete
    20. Anon 7/30 7:17 PM,

      Let us ask you a question in order to understand your concept of a false religion, to wit:

      Under any circumstances, would the Church allow a Catholic to receive absolution and Communion from a minister of what you consider to be a false religion?

      Delete
  14. It pays to separate personal from topical and we should always stick to topical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're absolutely right! Checkie should never be listened to, no matter what state of health he's in.

      Delete
  15. In the final analysis, does it really matter who has the advantage right now – Cekada or S & S?
    Even if Cekada has made a point or a validation that seemingly can’t be refuted or argued, are the anti Cekada people going to recognize it and take it from there? Will the S & S proponents convert to Cekadaism?
    I’ve a hunch S & S will make an impressive rebuttal to Cekada’s recent pronouncement and their mincemeat status will transform into something more appetizing, such as pumpkin with real whipped cream, or coconut cream!
    And, the beat goes on. . . .
    (It’s too early for dessert, drat!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An excellent appreciation of the situation.

      There's too much rancor to evaluate dispassionately the relative merits of either side, although we agree with you that S & S will make a devastating reply from which the Cheeseball won't recover. Just on the basis of their education and prose style, S & S have Checkie defeated already.

      Your analysis really argues for Tony Baloney to withdraw from these lists so that the spectators can view them through less partisan lenses. Those like us who know his many, many blunders can never give the side he champions the objective hearing it deserves because anything he writes stands impeached before it's read. That's unfortunate, but it's the price a fool pays for a lifetime's œuvre of error.

      Delete
  16. I just really can't see how anyone can follow these 3 men after meeting them. Dolan is the only one with charisma, but he lacks something. He seems more like Cekada's puppet. Cekada is arrogant. Sanborn is just prideful and arrogant.

    It just seems these people are con artists and the whole thing is a ponzi scheme.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It surely is amazing that people will follow such obvious second raters.

      Delete
    2. Response to Anonymous July 30, 2016 at 12:26 AM

      Knowing what many of us know now, and experiencing what many of us endured with them over the years, yes, it is insanity to fathom anyone “following” these men, now.

      Some of us became part of the trad movement in the United States way back in the 1970’s, when Archbishop Lefebvre made the headlines, was disobeying the Vatican, establishing seminaries, ordaining priests, establishing Mass centers. In a sense the Archbishop became a substitute for Paul VI & JPII. We loved him, he gave us hope,and what he was doing only seemed logical and necessary with the Vatican II devastation. I can’t speak for all of the laity who joined the ranks of the trad movement in its infancy, but I speak for a good percentage. We were desperate for a return to tradition, for the “old” Mass, for the best of the pre-Vatican II Church and Catholic culture. We feared if we didn’t take action ourselves through these priests, it would all be lost in another decade or so. They were pretty much all we had except for a few independent priests who broke away from the Vatican II Church; some of them were whack jobs at their best.

      Believe it or not, when they were younger, these priests actually impressed many of us and we thought they had all of the answers. They said lovely Masses in their fiddle back chasubles with all of the accouterments. Their sermons seemed to us inspirational and informative, even educational. Some were regarded by some of us as brilliant! They created an illusion we mistook for the real Church. We overlooked their arrogance and smugness, their juvenile ways, immaturity, sarcasm, tantrums and spend thriftiness. We didn’t question their credentials because, after all, if the Archbishop ordained them and sent them forth to establish Mass centers and seminaries, they have to be everything we thought a real priest must be. We valued the Mass & Sacraments they provided us and perhaps felt since this is the best we can do, but must put out and shut up! Some people donated mega bucks to them and lavished extraordinary time, talents, and skills to these chapels. We didn’t question them because we were told by them it was disrespectful and we were simple laypeople, we don’t have the education and expertise they do. I always tell people interested in these Mass centers that they enter at their own risk. Don’t make the same mistakes we oldsters made. What glitters isn't always gold.

      Delete
    3. Your last paragraph is an achingly poignant and brilliantly written summary of how most trads felt and reacted — the Readers included — when they first came across these men. Sadder but wiser men they — and we — rose the morrow morn. Your words should be printed in Tradistan's soon to be printed obituary.

      Delete
    4. Amen!! "Appalled" hit the nail on the head!!! Bravo!

      Delete
  17. S&S have been begging Checkie and other SV's to answer them and address their presumed masterful refutations of SV for a while now. Attention-begging is not something educated men would do.

    So maybe you should ask your newfound buddies S&S why they beg to be answered.

    I didn't say the video was an end-all-be-all, but that he did rake them over the coals.

    Whats wrong with using videos? It's a medium just as writing is. St. Francis de Sales said the voice has more of an impact than the pen does.

    We're in the digital age, after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Begging someone to answer them is NOT unprofessional; it’s something that people, whether educated or not, do all the time. But making that sort of accusation like you did is the kind of thing that people do when they have no argument of their own to put forth, so they attack their adversary instead of his argument – the old “ad hominem” trick. In short, it’s what IDIOTS do. And, by the way, we have no doubt that “S&S” will not only “rake Tinhorn Tony over the coals,” but will make him look like the shrill simpleton that he is. To borrow Checkie’s oft-used non-professional phraseology, he’ll be “toast.” (In fact, he’ll be a “carbon footprint”!)

      And another “by the way”: we wish Checkie a speedy recovery from his recent illness, if for no other reason than that, once healthy, he will be able to resume making a complete fool out of himself, as he did on “Schiavo” and on his other failed attempts at erudition – because, being Tony, he’ll never learn from his mistakes: he’ll keep trying (and failing) to put forth his specious arguments and his false logic. Like a pesky wasp that refuses to quit after being swatted several times, he’ll keep “coming back for more.” So, get well, Tony, so we can look forward to witnessing more of your mental meltdown!

      Delete
  18. Szal, Rev. Ignatius Joseph, A.B., J.C.L. The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics: A Historical Synopsis and a Commentary. Canon Law Studies, no. 264 (diss., Catholic University of America, 1948). pp. 2-6

    [T]here is no schism involved if one separates from his bishop and the communion of the faithful of his diocese but remains subject to the Roman Pontiff and the Universal Church. However, today such a position would be impossible to maintain in practice. Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.

    Pure schism, however, is rare. Though in theory or absolutely considered it can exist, in practice it is rarely to be found, for after a period of time most schismatics not only refuse obedience, but contend that they do not have to obey. This arises not from the nature of schism, but from the malice of the schismatic. St. Jerome (ca. 342-420) stated that every schism invents some heretical doctrine in order to make it appear that the withdrawal from the Church was justified. Pure schism is hardly possible except in individual persons. Most authors hold that practically and historically there are few schismatics in the strict sense of the term. Schism is ordinarily coupled with heresy, and in this form it is called mixed schism. ...

    Not every schism is at the same time heresy. This is true only of mixed schism. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why in several instances the law speaks only of schismatics, and makes no mention of heresy. There is an essential distinction between the two, as is evident from the fact that the canons of the Council of Laodicea (343-381) treated separately of schismatics and of heretics.

    Despite all the foregoing arguments to the contrary, the term schismatic is in common usage in the law of the Church. When it is used, it has reference also to the Oriental schismatics, and not merely to a small group of individuals who refuse obedience to the Roman Pontiff. It is with this group of Oriental schismatics that the present dissertation is concerned, and a pari the principles herein stated can be applied to other schismatics. Though one can safely say, in view of the common opinion of the authors, that practically all schism today is tainted with heresy, as is the case with various Oriental sects and the Old Catholics, still these groups of dissidents are commonly classed as schismatics in spite of the heretical doctrines which they are known to hold.

    However, there are others who hold that the Old Catholics are rather to be considered heretics, since their heretical doctrines predominate. Very shortly after their break with the Church they lapsed into the views of the Anglican Church, and thus departed further from the Catholic faith than would have been anticipated by a mere opposition to the Vatican Council. The Polish National Church is also closely allied with the Old Catholic Movement, and is likewise more heretical than schismatic. To consider the Old Catholics and the Polish National Church rather as heretics and schismatics is, in the writer's opinion, more in conformity with the truth. The denial of such fundamental dogmas as that of original sin, of the eternal punishment of hell, and of the necessity of faith for salvation certainly brands the Polish National Church as a heretical body.

    Perhaps due to the aforementioned difference of opinion among the authors, namely, whether the Orientals can rightly be called schismatics, especially after the Vatican Council which defined Papal Infallibility, several present-day authors forego the use of the term schismatic and speak instead of the Separated Eastern Church or of the Dissident Eastern Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, pp. 39-41

      The Code does make a distinction between the different classes of non-Catholics (can. 1325), so that there is an essential distinction between the heretic and the schismatic. However, in the question of religious communication all non-Catholics are placed in the same category, and religious communication is equally forbidden with the one as with the other. Hence, one may wonder why the question of religious communication with schismatics is treated as a distinct topic. If one considers the literal interpretation of the law, there would seem to be no difference between the communication with heretics and the communication with schismatics.

      It is true that the principles remain the same whether they be applied to heretics or to schismatics, but the difference arises in the application of these principles. In the present treatise the consideration of the circumstances and occasions attending the act of religious communication will be restricted to those factors which are common to schismatics. There are undoubtedly more occasions for religious communication with schismatics than with other non-Catholics in view of the similarity in the matter of worship of Catholics and schismatics. There is a general presumption that schismatics have valid sacraments, probably, in virtue of canon 209, even when jurisdiction is required for their valid administration, which concept is something foreign in relation to most of the heretical bodies, except in the case of baptism and of matrimony. Although today one can consider schismatics as heretics, at least theoretically, they are from a practical viewpoint closer to the whole truth than any other non-Catholic body. In this respect they may be placed in a distinct category.

      From another practical point of view the danger of communicating with schismatics is far greater than that with regard to other sects, because of the similarity of their rites and ceremonies to those of the Church. This is especially true in corresponding disciplines of the Oriental Catholic and “Orthodox” Churches. For this reason such communication may be more pernicious, and indifferentism may easily result. A Catholic would be more inclined and more easily persuaded to consent to communicate with schismatics than he would be were it a question of heretical worship. In view of these differences, communication with schismatics presents a distinct problem somewhat different from other types of communication.

      Delete
    2. Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, p. 41

      In practice, also, there is noticeable a decided lenience in favor of the schismatic. Catholics cannot compromise with schismatics in their teachings, but there is more often manifested a more considerate attitude toward the individual schismatic than toward the heretic, who is so far from the truth. This attitude of mind has perhaps led to some abuses and practices which cannot be permitted or tolerated since they are wrong in principle, though many practices can be permitted as long as they remain short of active religious participation in schismatic rites.

      Many authors today consider schismatics to be guilty also of heresy. They base their doctrine principally on the definition by the Vatican Council in 1869 of Papal infallibility. Schismatics at least by their actions imply a denial of this dogma. Many of them are in good faith, but many, too, are guilty of formal heresy. Nevertheless, this fact of the definition on Papal infallibility has not in actual practice effected a substantial change in the nature of schismatical sects. They still retain their identity, and are constituted as a group distinct from other heretical groups.

      With the passing of time the gap between the Catholic Church and the Oriental schismatic churches widened, but the schismatics have retained many dogmas, traditions, and rites whereby they have much in common with Catholics at least in a practical way. Hence the problem of communication with them is still a problem distinct from that of communication with heretics, and one which accordingly is worthy of specific consideration. The Church still lives in the hope of uniting the East and the West. As long as that hope survives the Church cannot treat lightly the question of religious communication with schismatics. There are principles to be preserved, but there are also souls to be saved. The problem is a delicate one, but if it be duly understood, then souls can be saved without the sacrificing of principle in so far as human efforts can be employed to the end of securing the salvation of souls.

      Delete
    3. Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, pp. 45-47

      All types of active religious communication with non-Catholics are gravely illicit. Such assistance is intrinsically and gravely evil for (a) if the worship is non-Catholic in form (as in the Mohammedan ablutions, or in the eating of the Jewish paschal lamb), it expresses a belief in a false creed symbolized by the ceremony, and (b) if the worship is Catholic in form but is undertaken under the auspices of a non-Catholic body (as in the celebration of Mass by a schismatic priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church.
      The obligation to avoid exposing oneself to the danger of perversion and to prevent giving scandal to others proceeds from the natural divine law. The positive divine law on the other hand forbids one to perform such an action which would be tantamount to at least an external denial of faith and a quasi-profession of a false sect. This prohibition is expressed in the words of our Lord: “He that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.”
      Just as one would be forbidden to profess openly his belief in a false sect, so also he is forbidden to place actions which have a religious signification and which are employed in the sacred religious functions of a false sect. Such actions imply a denial of the true faith. Even if these actions are simulated, that is, even if one has no intention of communicating formally in such a forbidden form of worship, still the actions themselves are illicit. Since they have but a single acknowledged aim, namely, to point to a form of worship, the actions will be interpreted as implying a profession of that worship. In and of themselves, then, such actions are illicit, and always and under all circumstances are forbidden. If the actions were simulated, they involved an additional malice of falsehood.
      It had indeed been contended that it was licit to simulate false worship under certain conditions when a grave reason was present, but Suarez pointed out the fallacy of the arguments invoked in support of that doctrine. When an action implied an approval and a profession of false worship, no contrary internal intention could justify the placing of such an action, no matter what the consequences might be.
      Even though one should simulate an active religious participation in view of some imminent grave danger, he would be exposing himself to the danger of perversion and would be giving scandal to other Catholics. This would be especially true if the actions were repeated frequently, for such a practice would soon lead to a sense of indifferentism, to a gradual alienation from the true faith, and to a corresponding attachment to the false sect. There is question not only of a personal danger to one's own faith, but also of one's conduct as furnishing an occasion of sin to others through the scandal which is given to the weak. The latter is especially true if the one who communicates with schismatics in their form of worship is reputedly a faithful member of the Church.

      Delete
    4. Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, p. 47

      Furthermore, the question is concerned not only with the fact of probable scandal for other Catholics, but also with the fact that through a Catholic's active religious communication with non-Catholics the latter are very often confirmed and strengthened in their errors. There is a natural tendency on the part of non-Catholics, and especially of schismatics, to seek confirmation and support for their beliefs. They glory in affirming that they have the same sacraments, the Real Presence, the apostolic succession, and other similar marks in common with the Catholic Church. They realize wherein the difference lies, but it is a great boon to them if they see Catholics coming to their religious services and conducting themselves in a way which seems to indicate that they consider the schismatic church to be just as good as the Catholic Church. Consequently, to perform an act of religious communication would be illicit, for in so doing one would confirm the schismatic in his adherence to a false sect. His conversion to the true faith would correspondingly be made more difficult.

      Delete
    5. We're grateful that your stellar efforts foreclosed on the necessity of our typing out the relevant parts of Szal re: the Church's nuanced attitude toward the dissidents.

      But of course, belonging to a sede cult is not the same as belonging to the Catholic Church and then communicating with schismatics.

      Delete
    6. Oh, Craig, your a TEXTBOOK case of stupidity and self-absorbed arrogance! You can't admit you're wrong; how are you different from the clergy you claim have the same faults, thou hypocrite?

      Ad arguendo, if the sedes are a "cult" the young man nevertheless believed he WAS Catholic, and held onto the dogmas of papal infallibility, etc. Now he rejects Catholicism (actual or perceived) to become Schismatic. This is not better---he is worse off! Instead of congratulations, you should be hoping he finds True Catholicism, wherever you think it lies---even being a Home Alone layman with an act of contrition handy, if that is what you think.

      But this won't resonate with our textbook proof reader who fancies himself some ersatz "academic"!

      Delete
    7. As Szal makes clear, the dissident bodies "may be placed in a distinct category."

      The sede cults, too, are a non-Catholic body (a false religious body, if you will, though not a false religion with respect to the elements that are the same as those of the Catholic faith). And they can barely be called a "body" owing to their internecine doctrinal squabbles and mutual condemnations. All they offer, at the request of the laity, are possibly valid sacraments confected in the Latin rite as practiced from the early to the mid-20th century by mostly malformed men who are not in the clerical state.

      In our view, this is the worst choice for anyone who finds himself struggling in today's unprecedented ecclesial crisis, where Rome is faithless and the clownish pretenders to her heritage are thoroughly without merit. In this uncertain wasteland without Peter, individual conscience must rule, for anomy reigns everywhere, and order awaits the Restoration.

      Delete
    8. Why do you think there will be a Restoration?

      I fear we are in the End Times already and things will only get worse and worse until the consummation finally comes.

      Delete
    9. Straw man Craig! Salz does not place their category "within the Church." Pope Pius XII and all authors clearly teach they are outside the Chutch. If you wish to maintain traditional priests (sedes) as outside the Church too, you shouldn't have commended the man for joining the Orthodox. If you're too stupid to know where the Chutch IS, we all know where it is NOT. Not the Orthodox, not the Lutherans, etc. Hence what you did was WRONG!

      It's unfortunate Sede clergy are so malformed! If they weren't they could join the super-erudite, high paying, exciting world of the textbook proof-reader!!!!!!

      Delete
    10. And we didn't place them within the Church either. We stipulated they were schismatics. Furthermore, we know the Church is not with the sede cults. We don't know where it is, to be frank, but we don't condemn the man for his choice amidst all the chaos we have today. His conscience led him to Orthodoxy in the face of all the perverseness of Traddilandia.

      Delete
    11. It's a vincibly erroneous conscience Craig. Since when are Schismatics a viable choice? How did Vatican 2 make them acceptable? If you don't know where the True Church is you can choose a sect that has always been outside the true Church? That makes about as much sense as anything else you write, you Textbook Idiot! "Craig the TI" I like your new name!

      Delete
  19. Good to see that even Eric Hoyle has joined the discussion.

    In fact, even S&S would condemn Toth's scandalous statements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed they would!

      Delete
    2. We're aliquid pravists, not R&Rers or sedes, so we don't look for approbation or paradigms elsewhere. We admire S & S for their thorough skewering of Checkie and Donnie; we remain neutral on their ecclesiology because in the crisis, we don't know who's right or even if any of the old rules apply. No has any real guide today except his or her conscience.

      Delete
    3. We do know you're wrong about the Schismatics Craig! Your position is "We don't know where the Truth is (so sad) but we will agree with anyone who hates Bp Dolan and Fr Cekada!"

      Hoyle and the others have shown you for the illiterate moron you are, and who ironically denigrates "the cult" for what YOU ARE---a poorly educated idiot who proof read textbooks and has an axe to grind.

      Delete
    4. Actually, the Hoyle quotes how we were right about the Church's nuanced position of the dissidents. Sorry. You're the one who can't closely parse complex texts.

      Delete
    5. Please show how Schismatics are "within the Church" Craig! Sorry, Pope Pius XII and theologians pre-V2 simply don't teach it. Salvation does NOT come through Schismatic sects. To quote Eric Hoyle above:"
      It's hard to believe you are praising a presumably Catholic man's decision to join the Eastern schismatics. Theologians do say that the Eastern schismatics are much closer to Catholicity than most non-Catholic bodies, but they add that this makes the danger of perversion more serious. By perversion, they refer of course to joining oneself to the schismatic sect or accepting its false claims or false teachings."

      Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement , does it Craig? Notice he calls their teachings "false." Hopefully, the textbooks you proof-read weren't in English. You have difficulty with it. Good thing you worked for the morons of the Ohio public schools. You'd never make it as a professional

      Delete