The Call To Schism at Traditionalist Publications

Every traditionalist publication has the same response to Traditionis Custodes: The Pope is attacking us! The Pope is attacking Tradition! It is as if the TLM is Tradition personified, to them, and it is as if they are Tradition personified. They cannot distinguish between themselves as fallen sinners who can err and Sacred Tradition itself, which is Divine Revelation. And they have taken the exterior elements of the TLM and made them into an idol to be worshiped. No wonder the Pope is taking it away from you: idols are bad for the children of God.

Summorum Pontificum gave priests authority to say the TLM directly from the Pope, by-passing the Bishops. But that means the Pope can also by-pass the Bishops and order all priests to cease saying the TLM. Two-edged sword. By supporting SP, you are supporting the end of the TLM.

At OnePeterFive nothing has changed since the resignation of Steve Skojec and the installation of the next leader in chief, Eric Sammons. They still openly battle against the Roman Pontiff and ANY decisions of any Pope or Council contrary to their own opinions. Do you need to be a priest or have a degree in theology in order to judge and condemn the Roman Pontiff at 1P5 (and any number of other conservative or traditionalist websites)?? No. They will publish any diatribe against the Pope and against the dogmas of the Faith (indefectibility; never-failing faith; unblemished Apostolic See) from anyone with a computer and half a brain. Read the bios of their authors. Anyone at all! As long as you are hating on the Pope, its acceptable. What does the editor do? Throw out articles that support Pope Francis or the Faith.

Case in Point

The latest article from Peter Kwasniewski, musician and doctor of philosophy, Gearing Up for the Long Campaign is utterly schismatic. It is a campaign against the Roman Pontiff. It is described like a war or series of battles against Traditionis Custodes. Kwasniewski propose gathering a group and going to the Bishop to demand the TLM. That is not obedience to the Church. Then he says that if you cannot find a TLM, pray a “dry Mass”. In other words, he asks his readers not to attend Mass, not to fulfill their obligation, unless they can have a TLM. If not, he wants them to refuse to fulfill their Sunday and holy day obligation and instead stay home and pretend to be at Mass. That is schismatic.

The opposite view was proposed by Timothy Gordon and @CatholicBoss in a video. They could not find a TLM on the weekend, so they went to a Novus Ordo Mass. That’s not schismatic. You prefer TLM, but you attend Novus Ordo Mass if TLM is not available.

Telling people to pray a dry Mass rather than attend the Novus Ordo Mass is schismatic. It is a grave sin of scandal. It is refusal of communion with those who are subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Roma locuta est; causa finita est. The decision of the Roman Pontiff on Traditionis Custodes is not going to change. The faithful have an obligation to accept it. He exercises the Keys of Peter, and what he binds on earth is bound even in heaven. A campaign against the decision of the Pope is like a campaign against Heaven itself.

Then Kwasniewski direct the “faithful”, if they cannot have the TLM in a sacred place, to consider holding a Latin Mass outdoors somewhere, such as right outside a church !!!! in a parking lot !!! Right. That is against Canon Law for good reason.

Can. 932 §1. The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise; in such a case the celebration must be done in a decent place.

A parking lot is not even a decent place. And then why in the world would you be celebrating Mass right outside of a sacred place, in the parking lot instead of in the sanctuary? Oh, right, because you are rebelling against the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops. That is not faithfulness to Christ.

And if the traditional Latin Mass is so sacred and full of doctrine, that it is to be treated like an immutable dogma, why is it acceptable to hold such a sacred “immutable” liturgy in a profane place? Will there not be cigarette butts, chewing gum, litter, trash, animal dung, dry leaves, and other bits of junk in the parking lot? That is a grave offense against God. There is no excuse for Mass in such a place.

And why is this traditional sacred parking lot Mass recommended on OnePeterFive? Because they are at war with the Roman Pontiff, so they would rather spite the Lord Jesus himself, and spit in His holy Face, rather than obey the Pope and the local Bishop.

What else does Kwasniewski say:

“The attempted substitute for Christianity—what Fr. John Hunwicke calls “Bergoglianity”—cares nothing for tradition, but it is doomed to fail like all merely human constructs.”

The claim that the Roman Pontiff has failed in faith to such an extent that he no longer offers even a form of Christianity, but his own new religion, is contrary to the dogmas of indefectibility, never-failing faith, and the unblemished Apostolic See. It is also a grave sin to accuse the Pope of interior sins, such as caring nothing for tradition, when you cannot see his soul and when such a sin would be contrary to the PROMISE of Jesus in (Mt 16:18; Lk 22:32) that the Pope would always be the Rock of Faith for the indefectible Church. No Pope can ever commit an interior sin of a certain type, that of desiring, intending, planning, or attempting to corrupt the Faith or lead the faithful astray. It is not permitted by the prevenient grace of God, just as it is not permitted by God for the holy souls in Purgatory to sin gravely and end up in Hell. Some sins are not permitted to the Pope. See Vatican I.

It is an utter rejection of the per se authority of the Roman Pontiff to claim that his teachings and decisions are an attempted substitute for Christianity, and are a new religion named after him. That claim accuses the Vicar of Christ and successor of Peter of apostasy, which is contrary to the dogma of the charism of truth and of never-failing faith.

Kwasniewski: “The injustice inflicted on the Church must be protested and fought against in every morally permissible way, while we continue to nourish ourselves on the riches available to us—some of which, like the traditional Divine Office, can never be taken away by any power on earth.”

You are not the Church, Mr. Kwasniewski. Neither are all the traditionalist in the world — many of whom are ENTIRELY faithful to the true Church — in and of themselves the Church. The vast majority of the faithful prefer the Novus Ordo Mass. It cannot be a grave error, as the Church is indefectible. And then no decision of any Roman Pontiff can be a grave error against doctrine or discipline, as the Apostolic See is unblemished.

Then when he says “in every morally permissible way”, I find that laughable. Accusing the Roman Pontiff of apostasy is a grave sin. Telling the faithful to pray a “dry Mass” rather than fulfil their Sunday obligation at a Novus Ordo Mass is a grave sin of scandal. Gathering a group to oppose the Roman Pontiff and to oppose the local Bishops is the grave sin of schism. Judging and condemning multiple Popes and Pope Saints is a grave sin. Judging and condemning multiple Ecumenical Councils is a grave sin.

Here are some more grave sins, detailed by Canon Law:

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Canon 1364, n. 1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication”

Can. 915 “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

Canon Law 1373: “A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.”

“Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.”

Canon Law 1404: “The First See is judged by no one”

In particular, this most recent article by Peter Kwasniewski violates Canon 1373. And there are many more examples of articles and posts on social media by innumerable unfaithful Catholics who have also violated that law. Catholics may not incite animosity or hatred against the Apostolic See (against the Pope in his exercise of the Keys of Saint Peter) or against an ordinary (a local Bishop) just because they don’t agree with an act of the power and ministry given to them by Christ. The provoking the faithful to disobedience is also a grave sin and a canonical delict.

Traditionis Custodes falls under Canon 212, as a decision that requires obedience from the faithful. You may not rebel against any teaching or any decision of discipline, even if it is non-infallible. Some mild disagreement with what is infallible is permissible, but never to the extent of accusing the Roman Pontiff of heresy, apostasy, or idolatry, or of grave errors on faith, morals, or discipline, never to the extent of speaking as if the entire Church has defected, and only a remnant is left. The Church is Apostolic, and so the body of Bishop led by the Pope can never fail.

The First See is judged by no one but God. That is the infallible teaching of Unam Sanctam, Lateran V, and the ordinary universal Magisterium. It is also Canon law. And yet anyone with any disagreement with the Roman Pontiff feels free to violate that dogma and law. That is a grave sin.

So it is a very sad farce for Kwasniewski to say that they must fight against the decision of the Roman Pontiff — which in itself is already the sin of schism and disobedience — “in every morally permissible way”. The number of immoral ways that the conservative and traditionalist schismatics, again a subset of all conservatives and traditionalists, have fought against the Church Herself is horrific. This will go down in Church history as one of the most harmful schisms and heresies against the Faith. And the sad hypocrisy is that these heretics and schismatic, while openly rejecting Pope after Pope and Council after Council, call themselves the most faithful. They cannot even imagine that they might be wrong, and a Pope or Council might possibly be right.

Restrictions on the TLM do not imply an attack on Sacred Tradition. Campaigning against the Pope and Bishops does imply an attack on the living Tradition and the living Magisterium. Only Popes and Bishops exercise the Magisterium. The living Tradition includes Popes, Bishops, clergy, religious, and laity. It is not limited to traditionalists. If you reject the Novus Ordo Mass, then you are rejecting most of the Church and most of the living Tradition.

And if you think that this act by Pope Francis, Traditionis Custodes, is severe, wait until you see what Pope Francis has in mind for this September. Providence is hinting that something big is on the horizon. Sure, I could be wrong. But after his surgery, Francis has to be thinking about his own morality, and that time is short for him to complete the work of his Pontificate. God is in a hurry. More work needs to be done to correct the conservative schismatics and heretics. Then the next step, under the next Pope, is to correct the liberal schismatics and heretics.

Ronald L. Conte Jr.

Please consider reading my new book, Reply to the Papal Accusers: Volume One, available in print and in Kindle formats.

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Call To Schism at Traditionalist Publications

  1. P.J. says:

    It has been very interesting reading about the travails of Steve Skojec, which he chronicled on his Substack account, The Skojec File. He really bared his soul about his massive disillusionment with traditional, Latin Mass Catholicism. And I definitely have the impression that his writing about it in such detail didn’t go down well with the others at OnePeterFive, and he was encouraged to resign.

    I wish him well with his new life. He has 6 children, and his only income at the moment is from his Substack. Even though he has been ‘off base’, in my opinion, I think he is headed in the right direction, and a subscription of $5 a month is negligible to me. He must be feeling like a bit of a pariah at the moment. I hope and pray that he will land safely.

    • Ron Conte says:

      I see a search for the true Catholic Faith in Steve. I also see a pride whereby he makes himself judge over all that the Popes and Councils decide. That is an interior battle for him. I hope he humbles himself to the obedience of faith. If anyone would like to help support Steve here is the link to his substack blog.

  2. P.J. says:

    I would like to add that Steve Skojec’s June 9 Substack post, ‘ The Lessons of Elijah Daniel’ is one of the most moving things I have read. The story of the miraculous (his word) revival of his marriage and the totally unexpected advent of a new baby in the parents’s mid- forties, told in the most personal detail, is quite something. God has blessed this family with a wonderful gift just at a time of great difficulty, and of course as the years go on, the troubles will recede and the joy of the blessing will still be there.
    “And we know that, for those who love God, all things work together unto good.” Romans 8:28a.

  3. sam says:

    “Restrictions on the TLM do not imply an attack on Sacred Tradition.” Since when? How about the pope sending out ‘spies’ to make sure it gets done. The TLM is considered an outright assault on VCII. Imagine the ancient Mass assaulting tradition of the last 60 years? The effects of the council have been distancing itself from the old church. Of course it’s an indirect attack on tradition. Which vatican ii are we to adhere to?

    • Ron Conte says:

      Spies? The Pope has authority from Christ, and he has the right to find out if his orders are being carried out. That is not spying. There’s nothing wrong with the TLM. But it cannot be the only form of the Mass today, as the Novus Ordo is better suited to saving more souls; it is more appealing to more persons. I wish we could have both forms. But many TLM supporters and leaders have attacked Vatican II and the NOM with all kinds of fables, leading to these restrictions.

  4. sam says:

    NO better suited to save souls?? Is that why millions have left the church? The council did not directly institute the NO as written. That happened after . And I don’t think Francis is moved by what a minority of TLM followers say the vast majority being silent. It’s way beyond that. What has never been proven is what the council really taught. That’s why there are more than one camp all believing what the council taught. This amounts to ambiguity from the documents to allow for this to occur.

    • Ron Conte says:

      The majority of the faithful choose the NOM over the TLM where both are available. Also, the Popes have the authority over the Mass; they do not need specific instructions from a Council. Vatican II is required belief, as are all infallible (assent of faith) and non-infallible (religious assent) teachings.

  5. sam says:

    The majority have left Ron. It took 50 + years but the majority are gone. What is left is troubling. That majority are unbelieving in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ (70%+) . The majority practice birth control (80-90%) Need i go on ? The TLM is picking up steam and no doubt with Francis’ sledgehammer effect on the Old Rite, it will only get worse for the NO church, not better. Is this the kind of effect the pope had in mind? Rather than bring the church closer, he is forcing a schism and by his own words said he is not afraid of. My guess is the pope has no other recourse than to cause this schism. He just is unable to reign in the anti-catholic mentality in the church.

    So which VCII are you referring to Ron?? That in itself will play out and not in a nice way. You might even discover the church doubting its own self regarding the council. Just read NC Register’s own critique about the council. Interesting and enlightening.

    • Ron Conte says:

      If you think there are two churches, the “NO church” and the TLM church, that is schism. The Church is indefectible, so She cannot have erred gravely in deciding on the NO Mass. And to blame the Mass for persons leaving the Church is like blaming Christ himself. The problems in the Church are due to the fact that we are all fallen sinners. It is not the particular form of the Mass used at that time, nor the particular Council of that time, nor the particular Popes. There will always be such problems because of sin and pride.

      Everything taught by Vatican II is required belief, at least by religious submission of intellect and will.

    • john says:

      Sam claims “[The] majority are unbelieving in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ (70%+). The majority practice birth control (80-90%)”. And that somehow these people are “not Catholic”.

      The church not just a community of the perfect (“the elect”), or a community of the pure (or more accurately, a community of those rules which you personally think are important while you ignore those rules you don’t like). And you do not need to pass a theology exam in order to enter fully into the church. The church is a community open to everyone, it is universal. And that means that it will include those who do not adhere fully to everything the church teaches and it will include those who fail in the moral teachings of the church. The people you criticise are a part of the community just as you are. This isn’t a new concept invented by the Pope: arguments like this date back to the early church. St Augustine, for instance, repeatedly made these kind of arguments in his dispute with the Donatists.

    • Ron Conte says:

      I don’t believe that the numbers cited are that high.

  6. sam says:

    what exactly in Vatican 2 documents are we to specifically submit that is different than what we were taught before? Like i asked you, which VCII are we to submit to and believe? Ooops… it was Crisis magazine and the council not NCR.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Everything taught by Vatican II on faith is to be believed. It is all Catholic magisterial teaching. This idea of ignoring the Council, or accusing the Council of heresy, or blaming the Council for all post-Council problems in the Church is not tenable as a theological position. Bellarmine believed Councils never err on faith or morals. No Council has ever had a teaching, approved by the Pope, later overturned or contradicted by another Council. That is why we have Councils, to teach definitively (or to decide matters of discipline definitively, even if such decisions on discipline can be changed as circumstances change).

      the article you cited: “Catholics need to recognize that sometimes councils succeed, and sometimes they fail. A common misconception among Catholics is that the Holy Spirit guides every aspect of ecumenical councils; therefore, all councils are “successful.” This is not Catholic teaching. The Holy Spirit acts primarily as a protector — He protects the deposit of faith by ensuring that no council can definitively declare heresy as Catholic truth. It’s a negative, not a positive, protection.”

      This type of very poor theological argument is common today. The person makes a series of claims, which are presented as absolute truth merely because the assertion is made (called an Ipse Dixit, because I say so, argument). There is no magisterial teaching saying anything like what is asserted in the quote. The issue is not successful or not successful. Council teach and make decisions of discipline. The claim that the Holy Spirit only protects from error is a gravely false claim, contrary to magisterial teaching. The Spirit positively guides the Church, the Popes and the Councils and the body of Bishops dispersed in the world. He does not merely edit out heresy. The dogma of Vatican I makes this clear in multiple places in its teachings:

      Filius Deus: “that he would be with this Church militant upon earth all days even to the end of the world. Hence never at any time has he ceased to stand by his beloved bride, assisting her when she teaches, blessing her in her labors and bringing her help when she is in danger.”

      “so the Church, appointed by God to be mother and mistress of nations, recognizes her obligations to all and is always ready and anxious to raise the fallen, to steady those who stumble, to embrace those who return, and to strengthen the good and urge them on to what is better. Thus she can never cease from witnessing to the truth of God which heals all [8 ] and from declaring it, for she knows that these words were directed to her: My spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth from this time forth and for evermore.”

      “This we shall do with the bishops of the whole world as our co-assessors and fellow-judges, gathered here as they are in the Holy Spirit….”

      “For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

      And then there is the indefectibility of the Church, which by no means is merely a guarantees not to teach heresy. The charism of the Roman Pontiff is of truth and never failing faith, not merely that the Pope cannot teach heresy, which is also true. And the Apostolic See is unblemished by any grave error, not merely free from heresy.

      “Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

      “7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”

      So it is quote a grave error to claim that all the Holy Spirit does at an Ecumenical Council, which is the body of Bishops with the Roman Pontiff, is to prevent heresy. That is not compatible with the teaching of the Church on the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church, the Pope, and the body of Bishops.

Comments are closed.