Catechism of Schism from Church Loonies

New Catechism

Catechism of Schism from Loonies

Sometimes we need to laugh at it all.

N.B. "Schism" is the dreaded "S" word in the Church. Let's put it in context, for once. Hence, this new catechism of Schism.

Question: Are you in schism with anyone who teaches that God evolves?

Answer: I am.

Question: Modernism is founded on God evolving. Does God evolve?

Answer: Definitely not! See Exodus 3:14; Psalm 89:4 / 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8; Hebrews 1:12, 13:8.

Question: Then you are in schism with all Modernists in the Church?

Answer: I am.

Question: Many prestigious Bible "scholars" say the Holy Texts "evolved" and were composed by some creative scribes a couple of centuries B.C. in a suburb of Babylon. Are you in schism with them?

Answer: I thought those experts said Mormons printed it up a hundred and fifty years ago in Albuquerque?

Question: Are you in Schism with all secret, occult organizations, including (but not limited to) the Freemasons, Mormons, Shriners, the St. Gallen Mafia, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, the WEF, the USCCB, Opus Dei, the Democrat Party, RINOs, and all UniParty politicians of any country? 

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with loonies, frauds, heretics, the demented, "sex fiends"; i.e. the prurient, the homosexuals, the "I got this info from a 16-year-old" creeps, and dopamine or adrenaline addicts?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with Argentine heretics in white who frown a lot?

Answers: Always.

Question: Are you in schism with any clergy who bring in shamans, witches, and sorcerers, and who worship their devils?

Answer: Vade retro satana!

Question: Are you in schism with all "pope-splainers" and papal idolaters? 

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with all Ultramontantists? 

Answer: Weren't they a '70's punk rock band arrested for public nudity on stage?

Question: Are you in schism with all popular music used in Mass, or folk music, or banal lyrics in general used liturgically? 

Answer: Palestrina, Tallis, Byrd, and Bach are my quartet; them, or Gregorian chant. (Bach should be baptized for his Mass in B minor.)

Question: Are you in schism with all "Church ladies" and parish "Karens"?

Answer: Yep!

Question: Are you in schism with every aging Hippie of any denomination?

Answer: Every single one.

Question: And any clergy whosoever sporting polyester vestments?

Answer: I am, massively. Especially ones who hang felt banners from the rafters.

Question: Are you in schism with Vatican II Council Humanism, the one that masqueraded as an Ecumenical Church Council, and generally the "Man is the measure of all things" crowd?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with "Religion exists for Man" and "the Mass exists for Man" theorists"?

Answer: Manifestly.

Question: Are you in schism with a pope who supports Communism?

Answer: Trad laity of the world, unite!

Question: Are you in schism with priests standing behind altars looking at you like clerks from behind a store counter?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with all priests who begin the Novus Ordo with "Good morning!"?

Answer: Bet on it.

Question: Are you in schism with parishioners who stare constantly at a priest's face while he says Mass?

Answer: Yuck! Creeps me out! I am.

Question: Are you in schism with all Cranmer tables, non-stone table altars, and Jewish supper prayers said in the Novus Ordo?

Answer: Definitely.

Question: Are you in schism with all "Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist"?

Answer: Who?

Question: Are you in schism with any liturgy that replaced the Offerendum with Bidding Prayers?

Answer: Yikes! Absolutely.

Question: Are you in schism with the "All Religions are good" commissars, the "Islam is better" Moonie worshipers, the "Buddhism is really a Western religion that ceaselessly affirms me, myself, and I" sects?

Answer: Buddhism teaches that the self doesn't exist, so, yes to all three.

Question: Are you in schism with all self-realization gurus, Health and Wealth Gospel Protestants, and the Shinto emperor of Japan?

 

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with any Jews, especially those who got the Church to drop the prayer for Jewish conversion from the Good Friday prayers?

Answer: I am.

Question: Are you in schism with anyone who blames Christianity for the world's problems, headaches, and nausea?

Answer: Tediously so.

Question: Are you in schism with the Deposit of Faith, also known as Catholic Tradition?

Answer: That's the one thing I'm not in schism with.

Inquisitor: Congratulations! You're orthodox!

Me: I thought I was Catholic!

-End-

  An Préachán

'Tradervatives' at AKA Catholic...and is Bergoglio pope, or what? (Updated)

 Amici,

Over at AKA Catholic,a good article to read is Are non-infallible doctrines trustworthy? It's a follow-on to this article about the knots many Traditional and Conservative Catholics tie themselves into in trying to 'square the circle' that Jorge Bergoglio is actually pope, yet obviously a wanton heretic who needs converted to the True Faith or excommunicated (i.e. his own blatant self-excommunication needs to be recognized).

I alluded to this cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-you-face conundrum (or one could call it the "We must destroy the village in order to save it" syndrome) in recent comments about Dr. Peter Kwasniewski's efforts to defend the Vetus Ordo, the Traditionalist Latin Mass. Efforts such as Prof K's are aiming toward redefining the nature, office, and powers of the pope, rather than asserting Bergoglio simply is NOT pope, for no actual pope would do what Jorge Mario B. does on an hourly basis. OnePeterFive and other such "mainstream Trad" sites are good exemplars of Prof K's thinking. They work overtime at it, and while they generally have excellent arguments for keeping the TLM, "Bergoglio as pope" is ultimately "a dog that won't hunt".

As I've written before: a pope has carte blanc powers, indeed, but they are to only be used for defending and promoting the Deposit of Faith. No pope can change or add to the Faith. Montini deeply wounded the Church in attacking the TLM Vetus Ordo, but he wasn't teaching heresy per se (though one could argue that point, I suppose). Bergoglio is trying to absolutely, truly, and most sincerely cancel and repudiate and kill the TLM AS WELL AS teaching heresy daily. (Indeed, Bergoglio's evil henchman, Andrea Grillo, says the TLM is already abrogated completely!)

Having the greatest respect for Prof K, and many of the others, I cannot go down their road, and the papacy cannot be weakened with extreme dangers to the Church. Trying to limit the papacy's powers in order to prevent Bergoglio's treachery leads to "rabbit hole" articles like this one. Such debates cause factions and perpetual adversaries.

We can clearly solve all this by insisting papal power only be used as intended. And that means, shove Bergoglio into an oubliette. I agree with Louie at AKA Catholic and Ann Barnardt at her site that it is much, much saner, simpler, and far more truthful, far more self-evident, to admit we have not got a legitimate pope in "Bergi". Now, that would get me called a Sedecavantist or a Benedicavantist label (like Ann B argues Ratzinger is still legit pope, so she gets unfairly mocked as a "Benedicavantist").

Prof K and that crowd seem to think it absolutely verboten to go Barnhardt's or AKA Catholic's way. It causes too many problems, they maintain. Well, their position causes even MORE problems! Insurmountable ones. Catholicism is not an intellectual suicide pact. And anyway, we've had eras in Church history when we have had two concurrent popes, even three! (Great Western Schism, 1378 - 1417) And periods existed when a pope could not be elected for various reasons. Pius VI died on August 29, 1799 and his successor, Pius VII, was elected on March 14, 1800. That's six months.) And Pius had been out of power for a couple of years before that! (Our old friend "Nappy" Napoleon occupied Rome in 1796 and poor Pius ended up in exile in France for 18 months before his death.)

Some die-hard sedevacantists say Pope John XXIII, Angelo Roncalli, was not a valid pope, and none of the others after him. But it was only Montini, Paul 6, who was a catastrophic disaster – and he holds no candle to Bergoglio, who is in full Church-gutting-and-scalping mode, striding Godzilla-like across the ecclesiastical landscape, smashing all before him and snorting radioactive fire.

It seems patently obvious that the logic is clear. AKA Catholic (Louie) writes in the first article linked above, in part about whether we should get rid of what the Church has always taught:

Not so. Let’s revisit the examples given. In each case one has a choice to make, to either apply what the Church has always taught to explain the present situation, or to redefine (that is, to twist or reject) what the Church has always taught to fit the present situation.

• The organization presently in Rome claiming to be the Holy Catholic Church authoritatively teaches false doctrines. 

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about herself, the organization presently in Rome, since its doctrines endanger the faithful, cannot be the one true Church.

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: The organization presently in Rome is the one true Church, despite what the Church has always taught about herself. Yes, it teaches false doctrines, but not infallibly, and so we are called to resist.

• Jorge Bergoglio fails to manifest the true faith; he actively opposes it.  

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about membership in the Church, Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic of any rank. 

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: Jorge Bergoglio is a member of the Holy Catholic Church, despite what the Church has always taught about visible membership in her. What’s more, given that most everyone considers him pope, we have no right say otherwise.

• “Francis” attacks the true faith but claims to be the Holy Roman Pontiff. 

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about the pope being our rule of faith, the Divine protection afforded to the pope by Our Lord, and the witness of the past nearly 2,000 years, Francis is obviously an anti-pope.  

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: Francis is the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ, despite what the Church has always taught about the papacy, the Divine protection afforded to it by Our Lord, and the witness of the past nearly 2,000 years. Even though he is the pope, we cannot treat him as our rule of faith, rather, we must defend ourselves against his false doctrines!

AnP again.

Read the whole article. Read both AKA Catholic articles. They are excellent, and I think AKA Catholic and Ann Barnhardt carry the day, easily.

For what it is worth. Who cares what I think? But personally, I think it worth a lot to know the truth of things and not let oneself get tied hopelessly into a Gordian knot. Speaking of which, another old-time general friend of mine famously took care of that knotty issue in a simple yet dramatic way.

He cut it. 

An Préachán