Posted on 09/17/2019 8:10:26 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Why are we even talking about schism? Who began this extraordinary conversation, and whose interests are served by it?
Ross Douthat of the New York Times admits that he used the term "schism" long ago, as a theoretical possibility — which he now (rightly) regards as remote. But now Pope Francis speaks calmly about the prospect of schism, and even says that it does not frighten him — which, as I've pointed out, is frightening in itself.
How did we come so far, so fast? How did we reach a point at which the nation's most prestigious secular newspaper raises the notion that American Catholics might split from the universal Church, and the Pontiff treats that prospect as a serious possibility?
Have the Pope's American critics threatened to break with Rome? Never! Quite the contrary, the most important critics of this pontificate insist that they — we — are doing our utmost to preserve the unity of the universal Church, to maintain our strong ties with "all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles." Cardinal Raymond Burke, often cited as the leader of a rebellious faction, has in fact repeatedly and adamantly pledged his loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. One cannot cause a schism by defending the established doctrine of the Church.
(One can, on the other hand, cause a schism by holding a meeting of a nation's bishops, seeking to change teachings of the universal Church, and ignoring admonitions from the Holy See to drop this divisive plan — as the leaders of the German bishops' conference are doing right now. Yet when the New York Times mentions schism, the threat is said to come from "some conservatives — especially in the United States," rather than from the rambunctious "progressives" in Germany.)
So again I ask: How did this conversation arise, about the alleged threat of an American schism. And if you follow Catholic conversations on the internet, you know the answer. The topic has been raised — and promoted, and repeated, and touted as an imminent threat — by the Pope's busiest and most aggressive online defenders.
Which prompts another question: Why are these folks — who have so enthusiastically championed the Pope's moves to alter Church teachings on issues such as marriage and the Eucharist — so anxious to talk about breaking with the Pope? And again I think I know the answer.
Why did President Lincoln maneuver the Confederacy into the bombardment of Fort Sumter? Because he saw that war was imminent, and he wanted the South to take the first shots. Similarly, the most "progressive" Catholics recognize that they cannot engineer the radical changes they want without precipitating a split in the Church. So they want orthodox Catholics to break away first, leaving them free to enact their own revolutionary agenda.
So let me conclude with a heartfelt plea to my fellow Catholics, and especially to my more excitable friends on the internet. Don't take the bait. We are not thinking of schism. We are thinking of — and working and praying for — the preservation of Catholic unity, a unity that keeps us in full communion not only with the Bishop of Rome and with our fellow Catholics around the world today, but also with all the faithful Catholics of previous generations. It's our Church: the Church of the apostles and saints and martyrs and of us poor sinners. We're not leaving. Hell no; we won't go.
Published with permission from CatholicCulture.org.
The Devil knows Scripture and knows how to use it.
Lawler opines that the lamentable Francis and his apparatchiks *want* to maneuver faithful Catholics into "firing the first shot" (reference Ft. Sumter) so we can be portrayed as rebels --- for defending the Doctrine of the Faith and the Eternal Moral Law.
Misled sheep: I'm outta here!
Beelzebub Maximus: (Heh.)
Lawler:
Class: discuss.
Ping
Step One: the Enemy captures the top leadership.Don't give them Step Two.Step Two: the faithful split.
Step Two is, objectively, working for the Enemy.
Because Pope Beelzebub Satanfelcher is a liberal plant whose only purpose is to destroy (western) religion
“schism” sounds like something some muslims did.
You missed the point. It is the faithful who have no intention of being run off because the apostates leading the Vatican prefer it. Read the saints.
Pray him out! That is what I started to do when it became apparent that he is a false teacher.
But sadly the enemy is doing just that.
Liberals destroy the Church - conservatives cling to the wreckage
Your right I just read the headline.I was shocked at the Pope’s casual attitude toward conservative Catholics.For him to make those remarks to the press-I find that insulting.
Your right I just read the headlines.:)
The gist. The enemy entity take over.
It may go the other way, Francis may cause such a negative reaction with the faithful that he ushers in a really good Pope. In other words, like Obama caused a backlash that brought in an outsider like Trump, and I’m not saying Trump is perfect, just stating an opposite result.
I think you just have to trust that the Church isn’t going anywhere, if it’s smaller, and the people are truly faithful Catholics, are we not better off than a large group of people who are lukewarm at the very best?
Welcome to Methodism, FRiends!
Pope Benedict had talked about a future with a smaller, holier, more devout Church.
Pope Francis seems to envision a smaller Church which is none of those things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.