VALUE OF PETITIONS TO THE MODERNISTS?

Over at pewsitter.com there are some posts asking readers to sign a petition for Synod Fathers to walk out of the Synod if the progressives have their way in pushing forward their evil agendas.  To me, however, the die has already been cast and it is clear who is running things behind the scenes.  Are we to imagine that we can petition those behind the attempt to water-down Church doctrine on marriage and the family and, that the progressives will have a “come to Jesus moment” and give up their sinful agendas?

If I were invited to participate in a Synod whose purpose clearly was  to water-down Church doctrine, I would have said: No thanks, your goals and objectives are not in accord with either Christ or His Church and I will not participate in this ludicrous and satanic effort to undermine what has been the consistent practice of the Church for centuries.  So, it doesn’t matter whether one is called “progressive” or “conservative” for they are all members of a religion different from the one I adhere to.  Then, I would pull out my rosary and pray for their conversion.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2015/10/17/value-of-petitions-to-the-modernists/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

6 comments on “VALUE OF PETITIONS TO THE MODERNISTS?

  1. Rosary, yes.

    Sign a petition if it makes you feel better, because that’s all it’s worth. Maybe the Sin-Nod should have a Twitter account. Then you could feel even better tweeting the twits all day long.

    I’m not a McLuhan buff, but his “medium is the message” is apropos here. Understand that the goal of the hierarchy is to have complacent donors. They need to give us an outlet, of course, to make us think we’re being heard. So, write your bishop, sign the petition, and you’ve done your part. Use modern methods to influence modern bishops, that’s the message. You’re heard! Baaaa!

    Want to be influential? Get out of your parish. Tell your bishop no more dollars until they stop ordaining fags and fems, stop sex indoctrination in the schools, and establish parishes that adhere to the Traditional liturgy and doctrine.

  2. Years ago, I read an excellent article by Neil McCaffrey on the folly of trying to instruct bishops. He was going after NeoCats who thought they could influence their bishop to end liturgical abuses et al. Does anybody have a copy?

    Nothing has changed in NewChurch, except that it smells worse every day. The bishops have been hearing from the faithful for decades now, but it keeps getting worse. Even 20-some years ago, some cardinal in the Holy Office, if I recall, acknowledged the outpouring of letters decrying the sex indoctrination in Catholic schools. The letter ended with “obey your bishop.” So, that’s what your letters and petitions get.

    If these bishops wanted to do the right thing, if they actually cared for moms and dads who are making sacrifices to raise their kids in the faith despite their bishop, driving hours to Mass, teaching the true catechism, you would know it. They are Judases, plain and simple. Tyrants, revolutionaries, and/or falsely obedient useful idiots. And the NeoCats are their protectors. Obey! Obey! Put your money in the basket, and shut up.

    • Here’s one recently reprinted by Rorate Caeli: Another Blockbuster Article from Neil McCaffrey in 1977 — Just Substitute “Francis” for “Paul VI”. It’s on AQ at angelqueen.org/2015/10/07/rorate-just-substitute-francis-for-paul-vi/

      I don’t think that’s the one, but here’s another from the same that sounds like it:

      Rorate Exclusive: A Memorandum by Publisher Neil McCaffrey on “Papal Cheerleaders,” from February 1976 — How History Repeats Itself Today

      Posted by Peter Kwasniewski at 8/13/2015

      Rorate is pleased to publish, for the first time, a memorandum that was written by the late traditional Catholic publisher Neil McCaffrey in February 1976. Addressed to Fr. Edward J. Berbusse, S.J. (first chaplain of Christendom College), Fr. Robert Bradley, S.J., Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., Dr. & Mrs. Dietrich von Hildebrand, and Dr. & Mrs. William A. Marra, this memo reduces to shreds the “papolatry” that has become such a characteristic feature of neo-Catholicism. Though written almost 40 years ago, it is perhaps more pertinent today than ever. (Published with permission of Roger A. McCaffrey.)

      February 25, 1976

      Memo to:
      Fr. Berbusse
      Fr. Bradley
      Fr. Miceli
      Dr. and Mrs. von Hildebrand
      Dr. and Mrs. Marra

      From:
      Neil McCaffrey

      Bill asked us to contribute a memo about our discussion. I’d like to offer mine on the subject on which we seemed to show the least consensus, criticism of the papacy.

      1. Scripture makes no bones about the weaknesses of the Apostles and especially of Peter; which in any case were well known to the early Christians, whose faith survived the knowledge. Catholic history, from the age of the Fathers on down, provides us with the model. It was only in the 19th century that some Catholics found it necessary to refine the policies of the Holy Spirit.

      2. The papacy is given primacy from the earliest years, yet there is little evidence of papolatry until we get to the last century. The papolaters of our day would have been regarded with astonishment by the Fathers, by Dante, by St. Catherine, by Bellarmine, by Suarez, by just about anyone you can name.

      3. We can see papolatry in perspective when we put it beside its kin; and we can do that with a flying visit to Moscow or Peking. There too we are allowed to criticize underlings. Pravda does it every day. But the Leader, never.

      4. Those orthodox Catholics who feel most comfortable with the spirit of Vatican II are least comfortable with its encouragement of free speech. John [XXIII] and Paul [VI] told us to relax and speak our minds. Perhaps they meant us to make an exception about speaking of themselves, but in fact they didn’t say so. So their admirers hasten to protect the Popes from themselves. (It seems, then, that popes can make mistakes; but only a privileged few are allowed to notice them.)

      5. In this connection, the favored few allow themselves, and even an occasional unwashed Catholic, one indulgence. We are permitted to disagree with Paul’s Ostpolitik. I haven’t yet been able to divine why the Pope can be criticized about this but not about Church discipline or the liturgy or ecumania. So paradox piles upon paradox. It is possible to make a plausible (though far from compelling) case for papal policy toward Communism. We might argue that the Church expects to outline today’s tyrants; that she is trying to make life a bit easier for Catholics behind the Iron Curtain; that she no longer has any confidence that the West will defend itself; even that life in Eastern Europe is less lethal to souls than life in the West. Whereas I have never heard a good argument for the new liturgy or for the new laxity in discipline. Even the papal cheerleaders can’t muster an argument, for the excellent reason that there is no argument that would commend itself to the orthodox. All the arguments, such as they are, come from the infidels. The papal cheerleaders can only repeat their incantation: obedience, obedience, obedience. By which, ironically, they don’t really mean obedience. They mean something else. They mean: shut up. Is it necessary, in this circle, to spell out the distinction between obedience and calling black white? (By way of underscoring the bankruptcy of papal policy, have you noticed that nobody ever talks these days about devotion to the Mass? There are no more courses on the Mass, no more books, no more private studies so that we might assist more knowledgeably and devoutly. In fact, if you so much as call it the Mass, you are a reactionary. There is a message here for the apologists of the new liturgy. But they don’t want to hear it. That would be “disloyal”. As long as we polish up the reputation of the present Pope, it would seem, we can forget about what happens to the Mass.)

      6. Which leads us ineluctably to the question of charity. I suggest that the papal cheerleaders are pursuing a policy that has the effect of destroying souls, but that masquerades as charity. They want to deny this Pope, or any living pope, the blessing of constructive criticism; and never mind what its absence may do to his soul. Never mind what the spiritual writers tell us about the duty of fraternal correction. Above all, never mind what its absence will do to the Church, and to the souls of the faithful. The caricatures that pass for charity in the Church today may be Satan’s most spectacular recent victory.

      7. We heard a lot of talk Sunday about the importance of faith when authority misbehaves, all of it sound. I think faith involves a corresponding devotion to truth, even unpalatable truth. What does a Catholic have to fear from truth? Shrinking from the truth is an indecent posture for a Catholic. Granted, tender souls need not concern themselves with high policy, and with the blunders of those in authority. That does not exonerate the mature Catholic. Moreover, if nobody concerns himself with these blunders, nobody will criticize them; and evil will flourish, unopposed.

      Not only that, but the papal cheerleaders are naive if they suppose they can silence criticism. All they succeed in doing is suppressing it among the orthodox. So the only criticism the Pope hears (except for coarse abuse from the unbalanced Right) is from the enemies of the papacy. When we reflect that this Pope is obsessed with public opinion (‘‘human respect,” the spiritual writers used to call it), it becomes double folly to choke off constructive criticism from the loyal orthodox.

      What makes the papal cheerleaders that way? Partly, as we have seen, a counterfeit charity. Partly, I think, an unappetizing elitism that makes them think even mature catholics can be affected in their faith if they admit to themselves that popes can suffer from the worst human weaknesses. And partly, it is fair to suspect, their own faith may not be seasoned enough to cope with this.

      Neurotics make lousy parents. Sometimes they try to make their child healthy by giving him a germ-free environment. Which only makes him prey to the first disease he encounters. Do the papal cheerleaders really suppose that stomping out every whisper of criticism is going to fortify the faith of the people they presume to speak for? It only leaves them vulnerable. They have built up no antibodies. The intelligent and charitable policy is to show innocent souls that true devotion to the Church, and to the papacy, is not incompatible with constructive criticism; indeed, demands it.

      The answer to immaturity is not perpetual childhood. A better cure is to grow up.

      P.S. What the cheerleaders are really telling us is that this Pope (any Pope?) is too vain, too irascible to accept even constructive criticism; that he is incapable of growth; that he is a crippled human being; and that he must be treated not like a father but like an Oriental despot. Q.E.D.

  3. True. Boycotts, letters, petitions, etc. have produced NOTHING in my own experience. These are men set on a course they have consciously selected and they will not be swayed.

    Out of sheer desperation, understandably, many traditional Catholics resort to “doing something,” if only to relieve the pressure they feel. That includes all the nonsense about “predictions” and “prophecies” and “special messages” from the Great Beyond.

    Yes, pray for a holy Catholic pope to someday ascend the throne, wear the tiara and kick some real gluteus maximae.

    But the likelihood of that ever occurring in the lifetime of even our great-great grandchildren is probably very remote.

    Meantime, soldier on.

    If you’re not in the state of grace, objectively and to the best of your knowledge, get there. If you are, stay there.

    And pray.

  4. Pray for their conversion to the Catholic faith.

    But, untiI that happens I haven’t (nor will I have) had anything to do with the Novus Ordo establishment (priests, bishops, liturgy, financial support etc) for years.

    It’s rotten from the top down.

    Homos, modernists, commies, freemasons, liberals, they’re bad news.

    There are a few solid Catholics in the hierarchy and priests who deserve our support, prayers and respect, but the rest of them IMO aren’t worth the time of day.

    This current pope is one of them, and exposed these people and their beliefs to the world, and exposed the farce which is the conciliar church.

  5. Synod Walkout Petition: Why I’m not signing

    Louie October 15, 2015 Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II

    [“Ditto” for me – Tom]

    null

    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, which Fr. José Miguel Marqués Campo so 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.

Leave a Reply