http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com/2011/07/divide-conquer-vs-conquer-unite_29.htmlFRIDAY, JULY 29, 2011
Divide & Conquer vs. Conquer & UniteIt is becoming apparent to even the average person what a waste of time “politics” is these days. Politicians, no matter what their stripe, are “all bought and paid for.” They’re in it for the money, NOT for us, the people. There might be a handful of well-intentioned politicians who really are trying to do the right thing, but not nearly enough; and how can such a handful of “honest” people work within a system that is thoroughly corrupt anyway, let alone change it or fix it? Practically speaking, it’s impossible.
And the phrase “bought and paid for” is an apt one, for it implies that it isn’t the politicians running the show – and it implies correctly: politicians and so-called “world leaders” are and have been simply the pawns of the “people behind the curtain” – the “powers that be” who are really running the show. And who are “the powers that be”? According to most “conspiracy” theorists of today, they are the international bankers: the Rothchilds, the Bilderbergers, and so on. All politicians, from the local mayor to the “world leader” types, are simply different levels of pawns, all of whom are controlled by these “powers that be.” But who controls them? Who is the ultimate “power that be” – the ultimate “capo di capi”? It’s an easy guess: Satan.
Satan’s goal, as we Catholics are all taught, is the destruction of humanity, both materially and spiritually. And how does he do it? – by “dividing and conquering” us, that’s how. And if one analyzes history truly objectively, there is ample evidence of it. Look at all the wars we have been in: most of them have produced “winners” who a generation or two later trade places with their foes and become the next war’s losers. Former foes become allies, and vice versa. This has been true throughout recorded history, but especially so in the last two centuries: did World War I, for instance, “make the world safe for democracy”? No. One short generation later, it spawned World War II, an even worse cataclysm, which replaced one adversary with one even worse.
And another byproduct of these wars has been a steady decline in morality – especially in “Christian” countries. The quotation marks are there for a reason: “Christian” countries are really not Christian any more; they’re functionally pagan. And even “Catholic” countries are not really Catholic any more (and many of these are being overrun by Moslems, as Belloc predicted). The “dividing and conquering of Christianity” that started with the Protestant Revolt has been aided along in the last two generations by Vatican II, which has decimated Catholicism from within. Scratch beneath the surface of the “V2” church, and you’ll find no real unity anymore: go to ten different priests, and you’ll get ten different opinions – on anything from theology to morality.
We traditional Catholics well know the story on that; and we are proud of the fact that we have not “splintered” like they have. Or have we? Before we all get too cocky about ourselves, and look down our noses at the Novus Ordo crowd, let’s scratch beneath our surface. Is traditional Catholicism “united”? -- in a word, NO!! In fact, the opposite is the case – and the rule. “Traditional” Catholicism runs the gamut from sedevacantism (those who think that there is no pope – “the chair of Peter is empty”) to the SSPX (yes, there is a pope, but our relationship with the Vatican II church is “quasi”), to outfits like the Society of St. Peter (full communion with the Vatican II church, “but they let us do our own thing”). These definitions, to be true, are inadequate and overly simplistic, but they kind of catch the flavor of the major divisions; and, of course, there are variations or offshoots of these, for yet even more reasons, plus a plethora of other minor sects and splinter groups.
It has got to the point where there are splits, and splits within splits, where one needs a “scorecard” to figure out “who’s on first.” Just look at Lefebvre’s original SSPX group: when “the nine” broke away from the SSPX, they formed the SSPV (Society of St. Pius V). But it wasn’t long before a few of the nine drifted away and became “independents”; and then later on, another split occurred within those who remained – the split over the (Archbishop) “Thuc” line of succession, with Frs. Dolan and Cekada going one way, and the “Oyster Bay” priests going the other.
The SSPX split and sub-splits are just one facet of traditional Catholicism’s fragmentation. There is also the CMRI, which has gone through more than one convolution; plus, there are a plethora of “independents” out there, split over issues from “baptism of desire” (the Dimond brothers, “Feenyites,” etc.) to varying shades of “whether the man sitting on Peter’s throne is a pope or not” – some outspokenly vocal, and some more reticent (for reasons that vary). Some, like the late Abbot Giardina, tried to steer clear of “controversy” (but one cleric found reason to criticize even that, didn’t he!).
The net result, as the reader ought to be noticing, is that traditional Catholicism is not a unified thing but a disjointed patchwork of sets and subsets, all going in a variety of directions, and each with its own agenda. And to make matters worse, each set (or should I say sect) has its own set of arbitrary rules and regulations, most of which are designed to keep the sheep within their flock – and their flock only: the “follow me or die” mentality. In fact, some of the splits were probably created for just that purpose, and are used as an “exclusionary” thing: “If you go to so-and-so’s Mass, we won’t give you the sacraments”; or, “we’ll bar you from the property,” etc., etc. etc.
This tactic has been used both by Daniel Dolan (against Barry Ahern, to name one example, and against the people of Chambéry, to cite another) and by the SSPV priests (to bar any “Thuc” adherents from the sacraments). What each has done is no less than “sacramental terrorism” or “sacramental blackmail” (although Dolan has a more storied history of doing it). But this kind of thing is not limited to those two: several clerics have banned people (or other priests) for “infractions” not even related to doctrinal matters -- engaging in never-ending turf wars and issuing “follow me or die” directives. That seems to be all too prevalent these days.
So, with all the foregoing discussion (the division and discord going on, and the knowledge of the devil’s policy of “divide and conquer”) as a backdrop, one is tempted to ask the following question: did it ever occur to anyone that these “disputes” might simply be parts of an overall “divide and conquer” strategy -- a premeditated, coordinated one? And, were some of these splits done for their purported reasons, or were they merely PRETEXTS to cover ulterior reasons or motives? If one looks closely at the reasons for these splits, he finds that NONE of them are over disputes on ARTICLES OF FAITH; they are invariably over irresolvable issues – or at least, issues that have no bearing on deciding whether one is Catholic or not. For instance, one wonders about the “Kelly, Jenkins, et al” split over the Thuc issue: it is not an “article of faith” thing. One might also wonder: was that the real reason for the split, or was it a “reason of convenience” to hide some ulterior motive?
One wonders as well if some these “divisive” priests are acting in concert, i.e., conspiring to divide traditional Catholics, or are they acting independently? It’s hard to say; but either way, the “dividing” is real, and it is detrimental – but oh so unnecessary: as long as people are in agreement on ARTICLES OF FAITH, why exclude them for holding differing opinions on non-resolvable issues that are not articles of faith? For example, one’s being a sedevacantist or NOT being a sedevacantist does not disqualify him from being Catholic. One may believe either position, and still be truly Catholic. Besides, who has the authority to “play pope” and proclaim whether they are or are not?
I might also add that in some cases, people have been banned for even non-clerical reasons (Michael DiSalvo and his wife were barred from SGG, just for not signing a docuмent condemning a fellow parishioner’s actions). At Fr. Jenkins’ Immaculate Conception Church, people are barred (and considered public sinners) unless they sign a paper abjuring any association with a “Thuc line” priest. The reasons for people being banned from this or that priest’s church vary in many cases “from the ridiculous to the even more ridiculous” -- which brings me to the whole point of this article: instead of excluding people of differing opinions on non-binding issues, why not “include” them all? This is the idea behind St. Albert the Great Church (“SAG”).
At SAG, there will be none of this “exclusionary” nonsense. All are welcome. But, PLEASE, do not interpret this as “religious indifferentism”: there is NO COMPROMISE with the articles of the Catholic faith. We will not bar you from coming to our Mass, nor will we force you to sign any papers abjuring this or that priest’s church; and we won’t turn you away because “you went to an SSPX church last week” – and, by the way, we won’t kick you out for wearing “flip-flops” or coats with sports logos, or for (ladies’) not wearing a veil (we’ll offer you one, though). Oh yeah, another thing: we won’t bar anyone from re-entering the church if he or she happens to leave during the sermon – remember that rule?
What we will do and are doing is to be entirely open and honest with our parishioners. We have a church constitution and bylaws which guarantee in writing that our church will not be sold out from under us (or our “building fund” money confiscated). At SAG, the financial books are OPEN for all parishioners to see – not hidden behind some Lotarskiesque smokescreen. And our church is one legal entity, not a labyrinthine mishmash of corporations and front companies set up to transfer money in some sort of shell game. We have a board, headed by our pastor but with lay board members acting in concert with the pastor, and who are not a “rubber-stamp” bunch of lackeys. Our church constitution and bylaws protect both pastor and parishioners.
At SAG, there will be no splitting up of families over irresolvable disputes on issues on which one has not the authority to decide anyway; no exclusionary “demands” or “requirements” that “disqualify” someone from attending; no “calling the cops” to bar anyone from the premises – in short, no sacramental blackmail. The “follow me or die” mentality does not exist here, nor does the “turf war” mentality. The only “turf” that we are interested in is saving souls. Furthermore, at SAG, you won’t have to worry about your children being mistreated or corrupted. And rest assured that n one here will show them porn or animal-abuse videos on the school computer! Oh, one more thing: at SAG, you will see a statue of our Lord portrayed as the Divine Infant of Prague, but never as a doll outfitted in a “doctor” suit (and definitely no stethoscope!).
SAG has grown in the space of one year from humble beginnings (Mass in a hotel room) to a thriving parish, one which is poised to expand both here in the U.S. and in Europe. Presently, our church in Cincinnati has a home-school co-op attached to it, with plans to expand as events allow. And, although it is not what one would call a full-fledged “school,” it is “getting the job done” quite nicely – without the “aid” of a sadistic principal breaking a wooden paddle over a student’s backside, or a son of his corrupting fellow students with porn, or another son of his fornicating with a fellow student, with such behavior dismissed by the church’s pastor as “boys will be boys.” And since it is a co-op, there is minimal cost involved -- just books, and NO tuition. The children, already getting a better academic (not to mention moral) education than their SGG counterparts, will benefit even more as the co-op inevitably expands and improves.
But even more importantly, the best thing about SAG is that there is no atmosphere of fear here -- no control, no manipulation, no intimidation, no “guilt-tripping,” and all the rest that goes with a cult. You’re free to come and go as you please. We don’t “divide and conquer” here; we propose to “unite and conquer” -- by example, and by “inclusion” -- not by manipulation, coercion, and exclusion. And, in spite of the fact that we have incurred extra legal expenses for Frs. Ramolla and Hall (brought on by the SGG clerics’ betrayal of them to U.S. Immigration authorities), our parishioners are not continually bombarded with requests for more “donations.” There are no sermons exhorting the parishioners to give more in order to avoid “cutbacks”; no urgent entreaties for money to “educate our future seminarians” (How many vocations has SGG produced so far? Hint: rhymes with “hero”); no urgent entreaties for $30,000 parking lots; no expensive outlays for grottos, “sacristy extensions” (to store even more “stuff”), no Latin American and European travel junkets disguised as “apostolates,” and so on.
The model on which SAG is based is a new one. It’s not the past “business as usual” scenario where the pastor is an absolute monarch and the parishioners are the peasants who have no say so but who bankroll the king and his court. It’s a whole new ballgame, where the parishioners control the purse-strings, where they are involved in the material decision-making process – which frees up the pastor to concentrate on the spiritual well-being of his flock. That is not to say that the pastor is stripped of all power and is a “figure-head” only. No, it’s more like he’s a “constitutional monarch.” He has a “parliament” to answer to, and that parliament is the lay board – a board which, by the way, includes a woman (misogynists beware – especially arrogant, condescending ones!).
For those in the immediate area of SAG or one of our “satellite” chapels, please come and try us out. And for those elsewhere, we invite you to study our “model” as a blueprint for yourselves. We think that it is a good way of insuring that the interests of both pastor and parishioners are protected, especially in the financial and legal sense. We think that it is an arrangement where no one person has too much power or control, but where God is put firmly in control. Come join us. Come. You’ll like the feeling. With the Infant of Prague as our guide, we cannot help but succeed. Come try us out.
Topic: Divide Conquer vs. Conquer Unite (Read 1320 times)