Browse By

Reality is divisive


In light of these pronouncements of Pope Francis and the principle of dialogue and acceptance of legitimate plurality of opinions, which was fostered by the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the unusually violent and intolerant reactions on behalf of some bishops and cardinals against the calm and circumspect plea of the Four Cardinals cause great astonishment. Among such intolerant reactions one could read affirmations such as, for instance: the four Cardinals are witless, naive, schismatic, heretical, and even comparable to the Arian heretics.

Such apodictic merciless judgments reveal not only intolerance, refusal of dialogue, and irrational rage, but demonstrate also a surrender to the impossibility of speaking the truth, a surrender to relativism in doctrine and practice, in faith and life. The above-mentioned clerical reaction against the prophetic voice of the Four Cardinals parades ultimately powerlessness before the eyes of the truth.

Initial reports that Antonio Spadaro, Walter Kasper, Godfried Danneels and Christoph Schonborn are preparing a statement that says, “I know you are but what am I?” and “OH YEAH?!!” remain unconfirmed.


One of the nicest things about the schism that’s coming will be that the grownups are finally – FINAlly – going to be in charge again.

Certainly now that the sides are separating for the schism, many of them, probably most, are not going to be any surprise at all. The declarations have been made by the most prominent for a long time. Cardinal Burke’s complaint that there are “divisions” among the clergy over this is merely a description of the existing schism, the one we’ve all known existed in the Church since the end of the Council. This separation of the wheat from the tares is much to be desired, however.

Christ cannot coexist with Belial. It will be a relief to at last have no more pretense that there are no real problems.

Divisive? Reality is divisive.

Non pacem; sed gladium.



17 thoughts on “Reality is divisive”

  1. Mike says:

    For what it’s worth, I think PF will fold and go home when he sees that a real schism is coming with at least 40 per cent of cardinals against him. He’s simply not that brave.

  2. c matt says:

    So they take the dubia all the way, and then what? What do you guess the number who go with Burke & Co. v. those who stay with Bergo & Co.? I figure it would go down as Burke, et al at some point declare Bergo anti-pope, those who agree go with him (maybe brings in the SSPX?), and those who don’t stay with Bergie. My guess: 10% Burke, 90% Bergie. To the world, we would look like some kooky sect, and it would be hard for us to distinguish ourselves from previous sedevacantists. I suppose, in a sense, everyone gets what they want – Burke & the remnant get the real true Church, Bergo & Co. get the buildings and assets (and liabilities thereto attached, I suppose).

  3. Evangeline says:

    I love that you’ve said this, about the word “mercy”. I have now a revulsion to the word, it has been so misused. I think the most annoying aspect of the word is hearing cloying Bishops using it, that really grates. What an astounding reality!
    Unless schism entails bamboo under fingernails I think I welcome it. I am so completely fatigued and done with this current papacy that anything else seems like it would be a relief. I would welcome his words being publicly identified by a Cardinal as heresy. I would welcome knowing we have a delineation between the false church now in operation and the true church that has been silenced and mistreated. I would welcome knowing that Christ was defended and we can openly support the one who supports Christ.
    I’m praying the good Cardinals take this dubia all the way.

  4. Hilary White says:

    I’ve heard from people who know him that Cardinal Burke has said that if he never hears the word again it’ll be too soon. I would tend to agree.

  5. Ursula says:

    I have heard Bishop Schneider use the word ‘mercy’ with such venom that he practically spat it! This would not come over in a written text.

  6. Hilary White says:

    yes, they’re all using the Bergoglian buzzwords.

  7. Janet Wilkie says:

    The modernist language may be Schneider’s own, but it is quite likely to be the language of appeal. As St. Paul said, “I make myself all things to all men, in order by this means to save some of them.”

    Using dialogue language serves very well to make Francis and company look like hypocritical fools. It is holding their own standard up to judge them by, and they are spectacularly failing for all the world to see.

    After all, the four Cardinal’s public letter was written to the world, not just to Francis.

    And as far as it goes, dialogue was not invented by Modernists; just used and abused by them. Plato made better use of it, as did St. Aquinas. The entire Summa Theologica is a highly structured dialogue.

    As the theological saying goes: “The abuse of a thing does not invalidate the proper use of that same thing.” The purpose of genuine dialogue is to arrive at truth. The purpose of ingenuous dialogue is to obscure truth.

    So I would not conclude that Schneider was building his argument on quicksand.

  8. S.Armaticus says:

    “Divisive? Reality is divisive.”

    And “rigid” too…

  9. Jeff C. says:

    This just in.
    Official statement from Kasper and Co: “We’re rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off us and sticks to you!”
    Ok, not really, but it’s another possibility.

  10. Magdalene says:

    There are tens of thousands of protestant communities all saying that THEY are inspired by the “Spirit” but they are all different and certainly cannot all be true. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth and cannot compromise on it! It is the grave responsibility for those, especially in high places, to defend the Truth and to promote and teach it.

  11. mark docherty says:

    You had me at Non Pacem. A time to be far from embraces.

  12. Liam Ronan says:

    At the Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia in 1976, then-Cardinal Karol Wojtyla spoke these words:

    “We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever experienced. I do not think that the wide circle of the American Society, or the whole wide circle of the Christian Community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-church, between the gospel and the anti-gospel, between Christ and the Antichrist. The confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence. It is, therefore, in God’s Plan, and it must be a trial which the Church must take up, and face courageously.”

  13. Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalaske says:

    Sorry Hilary, it should all be one comment.
    How deviant Jorge Bergoglio is!
    A baby (and a spiritually immature person) looks at the world and does not know, what is black, and what is white. He may sense it (God-given conscience at work), but he must be taught God’s revelation to men about what things are.
    Bergoglio takes God’s revelation and deems it divisive. He demands that we all cease do differentiate between the black and the white. Yet we know that choices we make, which are inspired by the Holy Spirit, can not simultaneously be inspired by the devil. It is always either – or. For example, the practice of adultery or sodomy is not inspired by the Holy Spirit, even if it is prolonged, and results in committed companionship. It is inspired by the devil and serves the devil’s ends.
    How tragic for us to have Bergoglio as pope.

  14. Barbara says:

    This from Bishop Schneider says the whole thing:

    “In light of these pronouncements of Pope Francis and the principle of dialogue and acceptance of legitimate plurality of opinions, which was fostered by the documents of the Second Vatican Council…”

    So Francis (and his evil cohort) is shutting down dialogue and acceptance of legitimate plurality of opinions? I’m afraid once you start taking this modernist language the battle is lost.

    Just as fighting the Devil on the grounds of religious liberty is a losing game. How can there be differing opinions about truth? Dialogue presupposes that each side has something of value to say. But this is the dialectic, this is synthesis. Take black and white, dialogue about them, agree that each has some value and produce a nice grey – this is the way moderns think. Dear God, have we lost our reason?

    Would it be better if Francis set up another Synod for dialogue about the dubia? Would it be good if he allowed the Four to have their say – to have their differing opinions fully aired and respected? They would then VOTE on Truth?

    Bishop Schneider is a brave man. His statement was sorely needed and I’m thankful that at least a few are speaking up. But just like when my football team starts the 3rd quarter 30 points down I say: “I gotta bad feeling.”

    St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

  15. Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalaske says:

    I should add the following:

    What standards, if any, do we use while practising discernment?

    Any Catholic should find the answer really easy: We use the Word of God. as eternal, unchanging, not subject to evolution. We do not use the degenerating civilization, which degenerates into a mess (It is not God, who said: “Make a mess”; God is the Creator of order, the perfect Logos) due to rejection of God’s order, to guide us.

    It is very foolish and evil to first cause a mess and degeneracy, and then to use it as a standard for all to “aspire” down to.

  16. Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalaske says:

    Also, discernment leads to discrimination. It is discernment (so promoted by Jorge Bergoglio) which enables us to set apart the white from the black, the true from the false, the logical from the disordered, the wise from the foolish, the godly from the devilish, the good from the evil. Discrimination is exactly what discernment is for. Once we learn to discriminate properly, we are all set to put in practice what our faith teaches.

    If a pope teaches that we should all be equally grey, and that virtue is a sign of elitism and mental illness coupled with hidden darkness, he should be removed immediately from his position. Obviously, he is unable to discern, teach and lead to salvation.

  17. Michael Dowd says:

    All of this is very good news, indeed. The irrational reaction to the four Cardinals is further confirmation that the magnificent four are correct.

Comments are closed.