A petition drive is presently underway calling for a “Synod Walkout” on the part of “every faithful Catholic bishop” currently participating therein. As of this writing, nearly 2,000 persons have signed it; including any number of individuals for whom I have a great deal of respect.
Even so, it is my opinion that walking out, while perhaps symbolically meaningful, is not nearly enough. This being the case, and for a number of other reasons, I have no plans of adding my own name.
Please allow me to explain further.
Most everyone is familiar with the phrase “fight or flight;” a simplistic term used to describe one’s potential responses when confronted with an approaching danger.
In the Church Militant, flight simply isn’t an option for those Successors to the Apostles who fully embrace the duty to protect their flock even unto death, and even more so, when the risk of remaining on the battlefield, fighting with all of the weapons afforded by truth, is little more than the veritable death of an ecclesial career.
As it concerns the current Synod of Bishops, one of the flaws to be found in the petition itself lies in the following statement:
Therefore, we faithfully request that each and every faithful Catholic bishop at the Synod, having made every effort to resist these attacks on Christ’s teaching, if its direction remains unaltered and those faithful voices remain unheard, do his sacred duty and publicly retire from any further participation in the Synod before its conclusion so as to prevent greater scandal and confusion.
Setting aside the obvious question as to how a walkout will assure anything other than the Synod’s direction remaining unaltered, the fact of the matter is that “every effort” most certainly has not been made to protect the sheep from the present attack on the part of ‘every faithful bishop;” indeed, far from it.
Kasper, Marx, Danneels, Wuerl, Kasper, Schonborn, Cupich, Maradiaga, Durocher…
Ravenous predators such as these are circling the sheepfold; frothing at the mouth and licking their chops.
Let us be clear, however, is no ordinary collection of carnivores seeking only to satisfy their individual hunger; rather, each one plays but a small role in a much larger, well-organized, plan.
To date, far from “making every effort” in defense of the sheep, even the most celebrated of the Synod shepherds has failed in his duty to identify for the faithful the leader of said pack; a wolf named Bergoglio.
As the petition states:
Several high-ranking Cardinals have brought concerns to the Pope, only to have them summarily dismissed as unworthy of consideration – with unfair accusations against those who are legitimately concerned that their voices will not be heard.
The time for private letters to the pope passed long ago as his hand in publishing the interim relatio of Extraordinary Synod 2014 most surely demonstrates.
Furthermore, the petition, in spite of the undoubtedly good intentions of both its authors and its signatories, also fails to inspire in the following lament of the “regular changes to the rules governing the current synodal process.”
This revised process also appears to reject openness, transparency, and collegiality, and the committee drafting the final document of the Synod seemingly rejects any substantive input from the Synod fathers.
It is as if the petition intends to suggest that one does well to accept the reality of the Synod as an authentic expression of the sacred Magisterium according to the hierarchical structure with which Our Blessed Lord endowed His Church.
In truth, it is nothing of the kind.
Our Lord most certainly did not establish a Church governed by “committee.” Indeed, no sacred obligation exists on the part of the hierarchy to practice “openness, transparency, and collegiality,” as the petition implies.
The Holy Catholic Church, by the will of her Founder and Head, is monarchical, by contrast, with Sovereign authority uniquely vested in the pope through whom Christ the King reigns vicariously.
Speaking of which, the present day Synod of Bishops was instituted by Pope Paul VI of most bitter memory with the Apostolic Letter, Apostolica Sollicitudo, which establishes among its purposes:
To facilitate agreement, at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church.
The undeniable truth is that there are no “essential matters of doctrine” about which legitimate disagreement exists. As such, the very idea of such a Synod is untenable; regardless of the parliamentary rules by which it proposes to function.
This is even more obviously the case given the pretenses under which the current Synod on the Family has been convened as any number of the topics under discussion (namely, the plight of the civilly divorced and remarried, the cohabitating, and those in homosexual unions with respect to their access to the Sacraments) simply are not up for debate.
This recognition perhaps invites supporters of the petition to insist all the more that the faithful Synod bishops should be called upon to walk out of the assembly, and yet such a counter argument reflects at least tacit support for my own position; namely, that walking out, in spite of whatever symbolic value it may have, is not nearly enough.
In fact, I would say that walking out, apart from other far more important actions, is cowardly.
Simply put, the truly faithful bishop, whether he chooses to remain in the Synod hall or not, cannot avoid the duty of alerting the faithful to the real threats that exist with respect to their Catholic faith, and ultimately their salvation; boldly naming names and condemning their evil proposals – the way intrepid churchmen used to address such attacks.
These threats so deserving of condemnation include:
– The Second Vatican Council: The confusion it engendered concerning the primary ends of marriage and its convoluted treatment of the College of Bishops and its resident powers.
– Pope Paul VI and the loss of faith he demonstrated in establishing the Synod of Bishops for the purpose of debating “essential matters of doctrine;” a recognition that forces one to call into question the validity of his having been “beatified.”
– Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the undeniable danger to the faithful that resides squarely in the person of Pope Francis, the same who convened the Synod to debate “questions” that are beyond reproach.
We can add to this list, if we wish to be thorough, the Novus Ordo Missae, whichso brilliantly demonstrated in a recent post as having invited a disregard for the natural order in favor of doing things “our way” instead of God’s way.
All of this having been said, I am certain that even those who already signed the petition will readily insist, along with me, that Our Lord did not establish a Church, the direction of which is to be guided by petition.
If only for this reason alone, I have never been very keen on petitioning the pope or other members of the sacred hierarchy as the effort, in spite of pure intentions, inevitably smacks of democracy.
These are extraordinary times. I can understand why one, moved by a desire to do something in defense of the faith, might sign the petition in question just the same.
I trust that those who did will likewise understand why I will not be joining them.
I wish I had read this before I added my name to the petition.
I signed knowing that no one would actually walk out. I signed out of frustration that an overwhelming number of bishops seem to be remaining silent about the whole process.
I signed because I know that it is a flawed, evil, process that even calls into debate the Doctrine of the Church.
I get it now. I wouldn’t have signed.
The Lord will retract your signature for you…don’t worry.
What else are they to do besides dig their heels in, and force the rights of God into the equation. Walking away is not the way to defy the mafia. It is placating to them. No, they ought to show their scars, their humiliations, their exhaustion. In short, they ought to stay and get thrown out by the the Swiss guards on order from the present heretical occupiers.
As one of the drafters of the open letter, I’d ask that readers consider the following information: http://www.onepeterfive.com/why-should-the-synod-fathers-walk-out/
Also, it is my belief that the Filial Appeal is a success BECAUSE it was ignored. It proved resoundingly the shallowness of Pope Francis’s rhetoric about “the smell of the sheep” and the “peripheries”; nearly a MILLION Catholics signed an appeal asking the pope to uphold Church teaching. He blatantly ignored them. His silence reverberates like thunder.
To that same point, whether or not these bishops walk out of what is almost certainly a rigged and “unwinnable” game, we have tried to provide them the impetus to stand up. As mentioned in the article linked above, there is historical precedent for such an action.
More to the point, the faithful bishops, like the 13 cardinals alleged to have signed the letter, will have very little voice when the final outcome of the Synod is produced. It will be too little, too late, and their post-synodal protests will sound more like sour grapes than full-throated resistance.
There is another advantage, however, in them walking out near the end, when all other measures have been exhausted: a PR coup. They will steal the media spotlight away from Pope Francis’s concluding remarks and focus the world’s attention on their position, if only for a moment. The media loves nothing more than to report on trouble and division brewing in the Church. For once, a message of orthodoxy might just get five minutes with the microphone. Wouldn’t that be something?
In any case, I respect those who disagree with this approach. But it IS an option, and not a cowardly one at all. Strategic retreat and conscientious objection are both (at the right times) valid weapons in the hands of a shrewd warrior.
Louie, I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, to be truthful, my initial reaction was that this was a good idea and may lead to good results. On second thought, (I hope this doesn’t sound too ridiculous) I recently read a book about Napoleon, the consummate general, who never would retreat in battle regardless of the odds and was consistently victorious even when he and his soldiers were vastly outnumbered.
I admit that this is not the best analogy in the world, but I believe that staying in the battle speaks louder than giving up–so to speak. Why let the enemy win by attrition?
Here is a wonderful article by a priest who says we are the Church Militant, let’s fight!!
Thanks all for commenting, Steve in particular for taking time to expound upon the motives behind the petition. This exchange is a good witness to the fact that we’re allowed to, and should occasionally expect to, disagree on certain points even as we stand together in defense of tradition.
I would only add that Our Lord’s exhortation, “And if any place will not receive you and they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them,” presupposes that the unadulterated truth is presented prior to leaving.
In the present case, the unaduterated truth thus far unspoken is that the Church is under attack, first and foremost, not from Walter Kasper and Co., but from the solitary bishop in white.
If the faithful bishops can muster up the courage to stand up in the Synod hall, before their brother bishops, in the presence of the pope, to denounce his singularly harmful actions (as outlined above), at that point, I’ll applaud them for shaking the dust from their feet.
It is my opinion that until they do this, they haven’t done their duty; i.e., they’ve not yet earned the right to pack their bags and depart from the scene of the (presumably about to be committed) crime.
Steve is right about the PR coup that would follow their departure, and I would then expect them to use it to warn the faithful of the actual dangers described above.
Unfortunately, I don’t think any of us are expecting anything even close to this…
Thanks again, all.
Since Patrick Archbold wrote it and Father José Miguel Marqués Campo reposted it on Facebook, will HFoVII let them give their sides of the story, as contributors to the site?
Listen to My word, and you will not value ten thousand words of men.
Thomas a Kempis
Louie writes: “[T]he truly faithful bishop…cannot avoid the duty of alerting the faithful to the real threats that exist with respect to their Catholic faith… – the way intrepid churchmen used to address such attacks”.
Although I am still relatively new to his work, I would just like to take this opportunity to give credit to Bp. Donald Sanborn for doing this very thing repeatedly.
Hold on a second…..didnt the arch scoundrel Dolan sign this letter? Is he now to be considered as one of the “good guys”? Didnt Pell, the supposed author of this letter, question whether or not any soul was in hell? Are these the sort of men we are now siding with? Faithful bishops? What vatican 2 bishop can possibly be faithful? Good grief it is astounding how low we are setting the bar.
Bp Sanborn is persona non grata everywhere, despite the fact that he may very well be the truest Catholic voice in the world at the present time.
I agree with your analysis and reasoning, Steve, and have signed the Petition with no qualms. I expected (as I suspect almost everyone who lent their name to it) that it would be utterly ignored. Notwithstanding, for the Bishops who elect to stand and fight this small bit of support (and that is what it is ultimately) might stoke the fire in their bellies ever more fiercely. There is no harm in this particular exercise.
Our Lord spoke these words to His disciples when they would face the choice in their apostolic ministry, not of ‘fight or flight’ but rather ‘having tried and failed do not waste your time on such as these’:
“And wherever they will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that city or that house; I promise you, it shall go less hard with the land of Sodom and Gomorrah at the day of judgement, than with that city.” – Matthew 10:14-15
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.” Matthew 7:6
And then there was St. Paul:
“…and through a window in a basket I was let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.” 2 Corinthians 11:33
In Christ I respect Louie’s opinion, but I must concur with Steve.
Peace brothers & sisters!
I signed it, but I see what you’re saying here. In my mind, I was envisioning the “conservatives” to not only walk out, but to follow up with press conferences and what not.
If for no other reason, but to wake up the sleeping “conservatives” to the gravity of the situation.
Ah well…ain’t gonna happen anyway unless the Bergolio camp really pushes it. I fear they’ll leave things ambiguous enough to dupe the conservatives.
dear rich & dear Dumb_ox,
Yes, indeed & there is nothing more that His Excellency would want to be than, as you state, rich, a “persona non grata.” Not suffering from the vice of human respect, the road he walks is perilous. If you ask His Excellency what needs to be done as you seek spiritual direction, he tells you, not caring whether you like him or not. May God bless him & the true priests he’s ordained. They all will die for the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Faith. So here is as good a time as any to state clearly- the following – again:
If there is a so-called “schism,” after this faux synod- (which is, in & of itself, borne of the error of collegiality of VII ) – such will affect the Modernist Sect which occupies diocesan parishes everywhere only; this affects not Holy Mother Church.
Has anyone seen what aged parent has to say on this matter? Find it here:
Perhaps you’d enjoy listening to this:
Peace be to you.
One more thing… it was reported that roughly 65% at the synod object to the Kasper/Francis direction it’s on. If (hypothetically) 65% of them walked out, it’d be such huge news and such a scandal, I doubt they could continue it.
That was also part of my thinking when signing it.
The in-fighting among these people in the sin-od is comical….liberal heretics vs traditional heretics. Meanwhile, the true Church remains steadfast in its unerring guidance, always there for those who are done playing the great vatican 2 game and are ready to return to Catholicism.
I signed – and I am glad I did. Somebody has to do something – this all just gets worse and worse.
That’s nice; if those same 65% came out and called the vatican 2 council heretical, THEN we’d really be getting somewhere…but they dont.
Im not sure what the true motives of these men, who are opposed to the unabashed anti-Catholic arrogance of bergoglio but yet remain steadfast to the heresies of vatican 2, really are. I have to believe that they are the most dangerous of the wolves.
Just to chime in on the article….Louie is 100% correct….simply walking out, and not fighting for the Truth, is not the answer.
I wouldn’t walk out. I would make a mess! Francis want’s a mess, I would add my part.
Let’s see. Since they are talking about Communion (for the divorced and remarried), I would talk about Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Since they are talking about gay relationships (Viz. sex), I would talk about chastity and virginity. Since they are talking about ordination of woman deacons, I would talk about the chaos in women’s Religious orders and virtually throughout the world.
You want a mess, you got it!
You are exactly right. I said the same thing way back when Mueller was the one defending traditional marriage. I noted that it had gotten so bad, that Mueller is now looked at as a defender of the faith.
We’re in crazyville.
Bergoglio doesn’t WANT a mess. He IS a mess!
Yup, crazyville is an apt description.
de Maria thanks for the link. What an interesting and intelligent site. Beautiful post.
Louie, I appreciate your intelligent analysis and your unwavering valor in upholding Our Lord’s commands, but your combox is devolving into nothing more than a platform for sedevcantists and that aspect is getting wearisome.
Personally speaking, Id be much more worried about defaming a man who you believe is the pope. Say what you want about sedes, but they would never do that.
In view of Louie’s statement, “…the very idea of such a Synod is untenable…,” it seems walking out is entirely appropriate. I did sign the petition and gladly so. Whether the petition bears tangible fruit or not, it publicly rebukes the blatant nod to sin at the highest levels of the Church.
ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE AT THE SYNOD ON THE FAMILY
Pope takes ill after exploding in anger in front of his Bishops.
Why is the international media covering this up?
I signed the petition. I think it is a good public statement and it will wake up those who unlike most of us here do not even consider there is a problem going on in the Church. But I think one of the posts nailed it, Vatican II was and its influence is the diabolic disorientation that shakes the Church to its foundation. The Synod is another milestone after Vatican II that even heretics can’t take it because the Pope in union of many if not most bishops want to reject Christ’s command on marriage and family directly, openly, shamelessly.
And Akita there is no reason to badmouth Sedevacantist, who knows, in the end they may prove all of us wrong. It is like the time when we had one pope and two anti popes, the important thing was all of their followers held on to the same true doctrines of the Church before the true pope was identified. All traditional Catholics should agree what the dogmas of the Church are and be faithful to them. We all should reject the teachings of Francis, JPII, Paul VI even Benedict XVI, some of us believe they are material heretics and waiting for the Church to formally declare so and some believe by their teachings they condemned themselves as formal heretics already. It makes no difference how we practice our faith.
Sign or no sign it ain’t gonna make a lick of difference. There’s no Bishops gonna walk because a bunch of laity tell ’em too. We’re too far into the error of papolotry to expect walkin’ Bishops.
The purpose of urging the orthodox bishops to ‘walk out’ of the synod is indeed to shift the focus from the liberal propagandizing to the point of view of those bishops who are defending Christ’s Truth. Let’s start with the theologically flawed ‘guiding document (IL). By staying in the artificial game of the shifting synod prodecures, the orthodox bishops are agreeing to debate what cannot be debated, that is, they are colluding with sin and lies. This speaks volumes and augments confusion in the faithful. The opposition to Christ at the synod is counting on the collaboration of the orthodox bishops in the manipulation of the synod in order to accomplish their deceptions. ‘Walking out’ says ‘We are not playing. Let’s start from scratch and scratch the IL, or at least make it palatable to those who follow Christ.’ This would indeed focus the media on the Truth of Christ as opposed to the verbal excrement sputtered by Lombardi and Rosica day in and day out. It is a beginning. But no, the bishops just keep plodding along. They will not break protocol because it would just be too humiliating. There is more than one way to be a martyr.
Cuff of Copee,
like I’ve said, my friend, you have a way of getting to the point quickly !!!!!
Precisely. Submission to a true Roman Pontiff identifies the Catholic. But the VII Sectarian? Ehh–not so much. Recently, in another place, one could read a prominent writer- long time trad – speak to (not about, BTW) Francis as if he were throwing his brother-in-law- up against a wall in the kitchen- holding him by the necktie- in an effort to correct Francis on how poorly he prepared the gnocchi which accompanied the veal scallopini entree.
May She Who is the Seat of Wisdom guide your every step.
I am definitely with you on his one, Steve. Thank you for putting this letter together. Of course the Church should not be run by a committee, which is all the more reason for a walk out — exposing what a sham the whole thing is to begin with.
“every faithful Catholic bishop” …a misnomer since there are likely no more Apostolic Bishops involved in a Novus Ordo synod, let alone, given their obstinate communion with belial, ‘faithful’ to the Christ and His Bride. Remember, the faith-fighters were and are exiled by VII’S New Order.
‘fight or flight’…the Truths of Christ are vigourously fought against by those who daily take flight from His Bride and her Petrine Successors.
If we have received the truth, to deny it is spiritual suicide – to ‘take flight’. The heresiarchs of the post-Pius XII interregnum continue to strut upon a stage that signifies (not nothing) but soul destruction.
I have the same concerns also.
“Bishop against bishop. Cardinal against cardinal.” Words of Our Lady. Should any of this surprise us?
Did you by any chance read all that “Tradition and Action” had to say regarding the vacillating reign of Pius XII ‘s pontificate? I would assume, considering you being a sedevacantist and all, that your bar for the last true Pope would be set at least beginning from PiusXI’s reign. It is interesting to note that not all seds are on the same page as to who was the real last Pope. Heck, some seds even go as far back as beleiving that the last true Pope ended in the year 1000.
The reason I am harping on this “Pius XII as the true last Pope” is that I strongly get the impression that you have seriously missed the mark understanding the gravity of his pontificate in opening the doors to contraception with his endorsment of NFP and to opening the doors to Bugninni. I question your Catholic Sense if Pius XII ‘s pontificate does not raise a huge red flag to the onslaught of the destruction of the sacrament of marriage and the Catholic Faith through the doors to modernism that he opened.
Just saying that maybe you should at least reconsider exactly what should be your criteria in announcing who one should beleive was the last true Pope.
Yes, you’re right, Mr Skojec – very few of those who signed the “Fulial Appeal” we’re so naive as to think Francis would ponder it and be moved to start defending the Faith. It was about putting on record that Faithful Catholics know what’s going on and that the person in the Chair of Peter is responsible, and his ignoring or rejecting the explicit demand (in reality a demand, though formally worded as a plea) would make his responsibility more clear and incontrovertible, incapable of being denied.
The truth cannot be defamatory – mutually exclusive.
Just another thought–The Synod “fathers” are bending over backwards trying to find a way to allow Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried (and God knows what else!!) They are acting as if they actually believed in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist–THEY DON’T! How else can you explain Eucharistic Ministers, communion in the hand, and all the other horrible abuses which flow from this. I have an idea. Why don’t they have a Synod admitting that the N.O. “church” does NOT believe in the Real Presence. Start a new religion based on this non-belief, give the bread “host” to whoever wants it and leave TRUE Catholics alone! There are so many protestant sects out there. One more won’t hurt.
Sunday October 18- ST. LUKE
sermon on St. Luke- His Excellency Bp. Donald Sanborn-20 mins.
Includes sin of our first parents & multiple other matters
“St. Luke and Holy Wisdom “–2009
Sedevacantism is the theory of those who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. This theory has been conceived in reaction to the very grave crisis which the Church has been undergoing since the Council. The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or allow to be propagated serious errors on the subjects of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc. (1)
The solution this theory attempts to bring forth is not based on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) who have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the Council every devised such a theory. Also, it does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism, namely, how the Church can continue to be visible, for, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their “form,” then no visible Church hierarchy is left. Moreover, this theory has some serious philosophical defects because it supposes that a head can be head materialiter, that is, without authority. (2)
Sedevacantists are like the draft dodgers in the 70s. These young men either did not agree with their government’s position on the Vietnam war so refused to fight, or were afraid to fight, consequently they fled to Canada.
Sedevacantists have also fled the Catholic Church because they either disagree with Church Teaching that Peter is the Head (in persona Christi) or they are afraid to stay and fight. This novel theory has no basis in Church history and is a response to VII.
Instead of continuing their flight many of them troll Catholic blogs and act as snipers. They take pot shots at those who point out the errors in their theory, and they attempt to influence others to their position by quoting others like themselves. This makes them dangerous.
The Catholic Church is the visible manifestation of Christ’s Bride – The Mystical Body of Christ. To hold that there can be a visible Church without a visible head is illogical.
Footnote should read:
I’ve often wondered just who Bishop Sanborn is. Here is some information from a quick web search:
“Bishop Donald Sanborn (born 1957) is a self-professed Traditionalist Catholic bishop belonging to the Sedeprivationist school or party. Unhappy with the church reforms being introduced in light of the Second Vatican Council, he entered Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s seminary in Ecône, Switzerland in 1971, and was initially made a priest while belonging to the Society of St. Pius X under Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 29, 1975.
Bishop Donald Sanborn was born in New York to a family of English ancestry who have relatively deep roots in the area, having arrived in New England as far back as 1632. In 1977, he was appointed the Rector of the first SSPX’s seminary in the Americas at Michigan, but moved it to a larger base St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary at Connecticut two years later. As the SSPX was making gestures to the modernist Vatican, in 1983, Sanborn was among nine SSPX priests expelled because they objected to liturgical changes imposed by Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as to other disturbing leftward trends in the Archbishop’s organization.
In early 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre directed the SSPX’s American priests to follow Angelo Roncalli’s (John XXIII’s) liturgical books of 1962. Lefebvre also insisted that priests publicly affirm their allegiance to “Pope” John Paul II, which the sedevacantists among them, including Sanborn, refused. They were promptly expelled from the SSPX. Thereafter, these priests, and a few other seminarians who joined them from the SSPX, formed the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) under the leadership of Clarence Kelly, upholding sedevacantism. Sanborn was one of the founding priests.
Within the SSPV too, differences arose over Kelly’s rejection of the Thuc-lineage bishops as invalid, and Sanborn, Daniel Dolan, Cekada and others left, becoming independent priests.
In 1984 Fr. Sanborn established the independent Traditionalist Catholic Blessed Sacrament Chapel in Martinez, California.
For those who don’t know, the “Thuc line” refers to the “traditionalist” priests and bishops who derive their orders from Bishop Ngo Dinh Thuc (1897-1984), the “Archbishop” of Hue, Vietnam prior to Vatican II. After Vatican II, Bishop Thuc took the sedevacantist position and ordained priests and consecrated bishops in the traditional rites for the preservation of the traditional Latin Mass and in resistance to the post-Vatican II sect. Most of the priests in the world who offer the traditional Latin Mass derive their orders from Bishop Thuc or from Archbishop Lefebvre. We regard both the Thuc and Lefebvre lines as valid. This obviously does not mean that we endorse all the positions held by priests who were ordained through those lines.” (1) (to follow)
This information is important because when links are offered a little background can help us to decide how credible the source is.
This is the source of the information quote above. Note there is a bit of bias in this site too, and I don’t endorse all that is said. It is important to know who speaks and what their position is.
Most people know a lot of this. Anyway, it’s good that you point out the reliability or lack thereof — of information. One thing, but only one, is that the parting– (BTW not all were expelled- at least one left ) -was not over sedevacantism, which is implied not only in what you copy here but all over the place It was over the issuance of annulments & acceptance of second marriages after NO annulments on the part of the FSSPX & related matters. Lefebvre himself talked about sedevacante all the time. Sedevacantists taught in Lefebvre’s seminaries & discussed it in the classroom. You know, I am with you on the more info the better.
If you’d like to glean a bit more insight into the reality, in time, of some of the particular circumstances you copy in the links here-there’s lots of audio out there. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre doubted JPII’s authority himself. Those of us who even knew him a little bit knew that well. Here’s something that will make a Catholic see the inherent sedevacantism in Lefebvre’s own outlook :
(but any further discussion let us make in the Forum-for that is Mr. Verrecchio’s wish & I will abide by that. )
Although what I’m about to say is neither here nor there, really–I also want to say I loved & love the Archbishop. Bp. Sanborn has expressed his warmth toward Lefebvre often publicly-for those who are not aware of this. Currently, FSSPX priests & bishops engage with His Excellency Bp. Donald Sanborn all the time – if truth be told.
how credible is it when any source claims that ***a position***
(in this case sedevacantism)–***not a theory–I mean let us be reasonable well read Catholics here,*** which is based upon ecclesiology and theology can be illogical.
For goodness’ sake-give us sedevacantists something to dig our teeth into–not such ludicrous statements as this.
obviously–it was a r-e-a-l-l-y quick websearch-seriously.
oops- woman overboard——–correction; The above should read as follows;
Currently, FSSPX priests & faithful engage with His Excellency Bp. Donald Sanborn all the time – if truth be told.
I literally am not quite sure when was the last time His Excellency Bp. Sanborn sat down for a coffee clatch with +Fellay- to be quite open about it.
Dear Barbara and de Maria,
I listened to about twelve of Bishop Sanborn’s talks, and found them very inspiring and faith strengthening….
Reminiscent of reading The Catechism Explained, by Spirago…crystal clear, and beautifully profound
Not trying to answer for salvemur here, I am sure she will do that. But if I may say, it’s good -the things you brought up. Some of what you mention is addressed to a degree here, Anastasia-
The sedevacantist position holds that the religion borne of VII is not the Catholic religion, but a non Catholic sect. To your point, limited in response by the format of a combox, in your 2nd. paragraph. This is the focus. Bergoglio wil be gone one day. He’s not the problem. If another man is elected who intends to teach & preach the religion of VII- he does not have the Faith, and neither will he hold the Authority of the Keys.
Peter is the twofold Unity of Faith & Charity. When His Majesty Our Lord Jesus Christ promised the Primacy to St. Peter, Our Lord demanded first a profession of Faith. When Our Lord did actually bestow the Primacy upon St. Peter, he demanded a profession of Charity. (the Feed my Lambs discourse in St. Mathew’s Gospel.) More we must address in the Forum to follow Mr. V.’s request.
Yes, I’ve listened to many of his talks and debates too.
Anastasia. Pius XII and the Catholic Church belong to the Bride of Christ.
The Vatican II Institution is not Catholic. It created a new ecclesiology, new doctrines, new disciplines, new non-sacerdotal ‘worship’, a new code of canon ‘law’, a new catechism, new architecture to turn away from God, a new ‘parliament’ of the parishes…it is a counterfeit…a mockery of the true Catholic Church, and it’s heresiarchs are a mockery of a true Pope.
Pius XII rejected the petitions to hold a council – declaring that such a thing in the time of the gathering wolves ‘would be disastrous’. The Holy Ghost did not permit such a disaster to occur under a true Pope. Within weeks of the death of Pius XII, Roncalli set in motion the Council claiming that he had been ‘inspired’ to do so by the ‘Holy Ghost’. Roncalii wrote the first ‘encyclical’ ever to be praised by freemasonry. He then proceeded to overthrow all that Pius XII, and the true Popes, had put in place to protect the Church from Communism, from Humanism, from Protestantism, from the ‘smoke of Satan’. Montini then sealed the establishment of the counterfeit Church – he ‘abdicated’ the Social Kingship of Christ in a mock ceremony that could never have occured within the Body of Christ.
The devil – the father of lies – mocks God. The Vatican II Novus Ordo Institution mocks Christ and His Bride. ‘Cardinal’ Burke is as much given to mocking God as any Novus Ordo prelate: “I’m not resisting Pope Francis, because he’s done nothing against doctrine.”
Anyone with even the slightest understanding of the Penny Catechism, the true Mass, and the point of the Petrine Office, knows this is yet another lie.
One of the greatest sorrows of this charade is that 99% of people who call themselves Traditional Catholics believe that Christ, through His Vicar, leads souls to hell. If you believe these hersiarchs, who have spread error and abomination throughout every single formerly Catholic parish on the planet, are Christ’s Vicars, you must believe this. A Pope is Christ’s ‘vicarius’ = proxy.
Barbara – thanks informing folks of the true Apostolicity and Catholicity of dear Bishop Sanborn. Something no ‘priest’ ordained in the N.O. Rite by an N.O. ‘bishop’ can claim. And, if a priest of the SSPX offers up the name of a heresiarch during Mass, he has destroyed the Catholicity of that Mass. Something a sedevacantist priest who refrains from inserting false names during the vacancy of the See of Peter does not do.
PS. a message from the banned Dr Lamb: “It is high time for everyone to realize that there is no “middle ground” in fighting the errors of the New Church. “He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth,” Our Blessed Lord warned (Lk 11:23). Get off the fence! The Vatican II Sect is either the true Catholic Church founded by Christ, or it is not. If it is, you must submit and adhere to it in all things and cling to it like a child clings to his mother. But if it is not, then it is a false church, a diabolical imitation of the Catholic Church, the “operation of error” sent by God in punishment for our sins, “to believe lying” (2 Thess 2:10).”
hi, Ever mindful,
Since you already said that you enjoy His Excellency’s talks/sermons, you may enjoy this also. It’s a very recent one, only a few weeks ago. As always, +Sanborn zooms through **many topics** quickly-and it’s as riveting as always——stick to the end !
Peace be to you.
There are dozens of sermons given by priests in good standing on sites like Sensus Traditionis, svfonline.org (lots of Father Rodriguez there), Video Sancto, and Audio Sancto.
Barbara, what do you mean by ‘good standing’?
Is one in communion with VII in good standing with Christ?
these men are teaching the Modernist religion, not Catholicism. Among myriad other false teachings, including their adherence to the disciplines & doctrinal errors of VII, they do not call sodomy what it is, they call it “SSA’- (as does Rodriguez-more can be said on that, some already has, but I already wrote my doctoral dissertation & do not want to extend that same effort here. ) These men are Modernists, teaching Lumen Gentium–et al– ‘nuf said. You may like Modernism & the Modernist Sect borne of VII. You & others may prefer it to Catholicism. If you do, or if anyone does, who am I to judge?
The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.
O course, yes-but if you don’t mind-this is not applicable here. To quote John Vennari, with reference to BXVI & his evil ecumenical ways & snyncretstic participations, Vennari states “we go buy what we see & hear.” This we must judge in shepherds (or those who purport to be,) of the Holy Religion. This, in no way whatsoever, equates to judging by outward appearance. Also, in no way does judging what we see & hear equate to making a judgement on the interior of any man, which is for God Almighty alone.
Please forgive misspelling,
no disrespect meant.