NEEDLESS DIVISION, SCANDALOUS BEHAVIOR, MAKING BAD THINGS WORSE
The Inherent Dangers of Disagreeing with a Traditional Catholic about Anything
Once upon a time it was a given that traditional Catholics were good Catholics. I will preface this bedtime story with the fact that I am preaching to the choir i.e. I have many times and probably will fit into the category of being a traditional Catholic that certainly is not always good and probably worse than most. But I believe there is a solution to all our ills which we will get to before this docuмent closes. I have told my children many times, and they understand this really well, that there are many bad people who do good things. And there are many good people that do bad things. We all know of the friendly naturalists who are on the path to Hell that generally are as nice as can be. And we know all too many Catholics, on the path to Heaven who can be mean-spirited and contentious, among many other negative things. My children also understand that a nice person is not necessarily a good person, and that a good person is not necessarily always nice. Perhaps an example will help clarify what is probably already clear. Take the person who is generally superficial, their happiness or discontentment depends on what happens around them, how things make them feel. Such a person oftentimes cannot make basic distinctions. They will believe an unorthodox priest to be a good priest if he is nice to them. They will believe an orthodox priest to be a bad priest if he does not go out of his way to be friendly. My point is, and this cannot be overstated. Well, I forgot my point, but I do hope you continue reading. There is interesting “goings ons” with Stephen Heiner and the CMRI. Standing for what you believe or think you know to be true, even against those who are perceived to be good traditional clergy, even knowing the onslaught of what is to come against you as a result, provided the motives are pure, so long as you truly believe you will be putting souls in a position to better help themselves and doing more good than harm, can be, under certain circuмstances laudable, in my un-trained, and perhaps erring opinion. I have no doubt that Stephen Heiner is a good person and I have almost no doubt that he has done, does, and will continue to do bad things. I have no doubt that the vast majority if not all the CMRI clergy are good people. I have some doubt as to whether they are habitually guilty or culpable of doing bad things i.e., deliberate and willful venial sins. That is, I generally hold their clergy in higher esteem than I hold lay-people like myself and most others. I have no doubt that all of the above are well-intentioned and on the path to Heaven. My purpose here is to help us all avoid some Purgatory, in ways that will heretofore be mentioned, but for now I will say this is done by speaking less. Please allow me to speak more on this issue. What we have here is the una cuм heretic issue being ratcheted up again: https://www.truerestoration.org/what-serious-catholics-should-know-about-the-cmri/ https://www.truerestoration.org/cmri-part-2-corrections-and-answers-to-objections/ Mr. Heiner is a good soul. From what I see, he has obtained a level of sanctity that I hope to reach before I die. I do not think we can doubt his good will, or his motives. And I first seek to share what I believe are some of his good points: Quote
One has to learn things over time from various sources and even then, one has to then contend against the widespread malformation of human minds worldwide, general disrespect of clergy, and the frequent failure to recognize the laity’s proper role in subordination to those clergy.
Bamm! Well stated Mr. Heiner. Quote
Christians err and it is magnificent when they admit their errors and acknowledge how truly misguided it is for dust and ashes to be proud.
This too falls under the bamm category. Quote
They didn’t know that I’m not one to rumor-monger, or to seek sensational headlines.
Generally, when writing articles, it is good not to focus on yourself. Let me clarify the above quote by explaining something about myself. I also am not one to rumor monger. But sometimes I do like to sensationalize headlines when blogging. This is partly why I do not like to blog with a large group with wide-ranging views. It is an occasion of sin to me. It is a way to feed my ego (in my own mind). Coming up with a work and thinking how great I am. I re-read what I have written and am proud that I agree 100% with myself. For me to agree 100% with something must mean whatever was written was absolutely stupendous. Right? But I do believe in spreading truth, even about reputedly good clergy, if it can help people make better formed decisions that will make a positive effect on their souls, and especially when children can be or are involved. The temptation one does not want to fall into, is to spread rumors (that are very likely true, but perhaps not 100% certain, if not 100% certain this should be stated) simply to get back at someone for being wronged. Quote
What was curious to me at the time, and is still curious, is the inability of someone to look at allegations and ask, “Is it true?”
BAMM!!! Seems simple, and common sensical. Quote
Instead what we saw was partisanship: “These are my people, they can do no wrong, how dare you.”
BAMM!!! BAMM!!! He is so right on this issue. I have experienced this firsthand on several occasions. Very well stated! Quote
But no one is above examination, not the SSPV, not the CMRI, not the RCI, not the IMBC, not SGG clergy, not anyone, not just now, but even in “normal” circuмstances in the Church.
BAMMETH COMAMMETH!!! Stephen Heiner, you da man! Do people get this? Often times, I believe they do not. And will not, even after reading this. It would be interesting to know if Stephen would follow his own advice if unpleasant truths were revealed about SSG, or Bishop Sanborn (a Bishop I have great respect for). I believe he would. I believe he is a man of integrity. If he reads this, he should reflect on it to make sure. Quote
I made a mistake on this front and I apologize for that.
Admitting mistakes and apologizing are rare virtues among the traditional Catholics who have taken issue with me, falsely accused me, and engaged in other mean-spirited and vindictive actions against me I have encountered. I speak truly. Good job Mr. Stephen Heiner. Quote
I have (…) heard from numerous people that their CMRI clergy tell them that it is okay to go to una cuм Masses. I do not believe that there is a vast conspiracy of laypeople lying about the CMRI.
This is the case with me in regard to what I have heard about SSG. I have also had some negative long-distance experiences with them myself. Mention this, and you get roasted.Quote
If I didn’t spell out my original intent in the article, I apologize for not being clear. I will not make the mistake again.
It is good for Stephen to apologize for this. There have been times when I have not been clear, and if it is brought to my attention, I try to clarify and have never been hesitant to apologize if I believe I was wrong or for hurting someone. But unlike Stephen I will probably be unclear again in the future, though thinking I am being clear at the time of the writing. Quote
we are interested in lying and purposeless bomb-throwing
To accuse one of such with no basis for the accusation is certainly sinful and I believe we can all vouch on how it hurts to be accused (when it is not true) of such by reputable and or otherwise good Catholics, or even worse by those you believe to be good friends. A good friend is not afraid to give constructive criticism and take it. But a good friend will never knowingly falsely accuse you. A good Catholic would not do that to anyone. You may notice I have made no commentary on the substance of the accusations Mr. Stephen Heiner makes. And I will make no commentary . . . Except to say the following. My personal public opinion on the CMRI is that they are the best SV organization out there, especially regarding their dealings with the parishioners, their seminarians, and their students at their schools. I base this on all I have heard and read, from reliable sources and the few personal encounters I have had. They are the least cult like of the SV organizations. This is not to say the others are cults or like a cult. I have not had many dealings with the others. Who am I to say anything about anything I know practically nothing about? But CMRI is who comes out smelling the best, smelling like rose based on all the research I have done. And I have done a lot of research. I take my faith very seriously. And when I was considering moving to the “best” place, which I thought was SGG for a time, regarding the faith and schooling for my children the CMRI would still top the list. In all my investigations of all the SV clergy I find the least (next to nothing, if anything legitimate at all) against Bishop Pivarunas. He is amiable, down to earth, and works tirelessly for the salvation of souls. Could you imagine what SV land would be like if he were the worst of the clergy we had to deal with? Now the una cuм heretic issue. Ah. The una cuм heretic issue. What to do about the una cuм heretic issue. I have been very opinionated on this topic, for, against, and not being sure. This says a lot about the topic itself in my mind. It says it is a confusing topic. Take two very good Catholics with polar opposite opinions (they do not consider their belief on the issue opinions). Please correct me if I am wrong. Kathleen Plumb and Stephen Heiner. Should we say that one is bright and the other not so intellectually gifted. And therefore, the bright one is the correct one? Of course not. They are both, very obviously, intellectually gifted. Should we say the one is the more virtuous Catholic over the other, so the most virtuous Catholic is correct? Even if this were the case that would not be reason to base the correctness of their assumptions upon. But we know they are both virtuous Catholics, who care about everything pertaining to the Faith. Can we say that one, both, or neither, have come to their definitive conclusions based upon some axe they have to grind against some wrong doings they have encountered. We cannot say such a thing, for it is probably not true and we must believe it not to be true until the contrary is proven. Yet both people are 100% sure they hold the correct opinion. They have both consulted numerous reliable clergy on the issue. They both bind their conclusions on others (in a certain sense) more or less, to an extent, Kathleen more than Stephen. Stephen unambiguously states that it is ipso facto imprudent to attend an una cuм heretic Mass regardless of the circuмstances and suggests that one aught not even associate with the CMRI because of this issue. Kathleen does not let anyone write an opinion piece for her paper, on any topic, no matter how qualified they be on that topic, if they are known to be anti-una cuм heretic Mass i.e., claim that they believe such a Mass should be off-limits to knowledgeable sedevacantists. She does not associate with known anti-una cuм heretic clergy that I know of. So, two smart, good Catholics, who have both done extensive research on the topic have come to the opposite conclusion and practice (not thinking it advisable to even associate with clergy who disagree with their de fide opinions). This speaks volumes. Neither position should be condemned until a valid pope speaks on the issue. I will go a step further and say the issue should not divide us to the point that we will not associate or let write for us one who disagrees with our etched in stone opinion. Kathleen’s claim is “Father Martin Stepanich has spoken, and the case is closed”. Yet she disagrees with him (correct me if I am wrong) on the issue of how Jesus should be clothed in the manger and on the post-1955 liturgical changes of Pius XII and other things that good man did. This means the case is settled because Father Stepanich agreed with her, not because she looks to him on settling all controversial Catholic issues. Now about the una cuм heretic issue itself. I commend Mr. Stephen Heiner on the research he has done on the issue, producing a writing from Bishop Pivarunas which I do not recall having come across before. But I do not believe this letter necessarily puts Mr. Heiner’s view in a good light: Quote
Prior to Fr. Cekada’s opinion in this matter, none of the older traditional clergy (Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Carmona, Bishop Musey, Father Stepanich, etc.) taught that it is a mortal sin for sedevacantists to attend an “una cuм” Mass.
That is a weighty statement. I recommend all read that substantive letter: https://www.materdeiseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Thoughts-on-the-Una-cuм-Issue-by-Bp.-Pivarunas-CMRI.pdf But Mr. Heiner smartly, and rightly, states that the issue should be whether attendance at an una cuм heretic Mass is prudent or not. That really is the crux of the issue. In fact, I agree with Mr. Heiner, that the question should not be about whether it is a mortal, sin but whether it be a sin at all. Or as Father Stepanich words it, is attendance at such a Mass “lawful”. Objectively, (correct me if I am wrong) if a thing is lawful according to the teaching of the Church, then it is not sinful. Obviously if you think it is wrong and do it anyway you would be guilty of sin. On the other hand, if you thought you were obliged to go to such a Mass, because that was the only one reasonably available, but did not go because you were feeling lazy you would be guilty of sin as well. Yet Mr. Heiner’s asking if attending such a Mass is prudent is still a valid point, as a thing can be both lawful and not sinful and still not be prudent. Consider the case of the sermon teaching how we must not obey a valid pope or accept what he teaches or binds on the Church, and the effect it would have on children, and the adults. Such an objections cannot be sneezed at. Regardless, we have Father Martin Stepanich’s responses to the issue below, which are of great weight, because of his qualifications as an authentic pre-V2 Doctor of Sacred Theology: http://traditionalcatholicsermons.org/STEPANICH.pdf The great state of Ohio has been known for having the most traditional, SSPX and SV Masses available and there is a lot of competition in that area. The rumor that Bishop Kelly, out of concern for the competition in his area for members led to their anti-Thuc stance, or that was the same reason SSG took their una cuм heretic stance, or now, that Bishop Sanborn plans to move to Pennsylvania, is reason that “out of the blue” Bishop Dolan has castigated the novel, anti-Bellarministic, materieliter/formaliter theory, proposed by a legitimate theologian, when Bishop Sanborn has held that theory for decades, is motivated by revenue, is something that must be proved before it be asserted. Indeed, the love of money is the root of all evil and is why the world finds itself where it is today, but that those clergy in the catacombs of our day, entrusted with numerous souls, and having to render a much stricter account to God than the lay-people in their charge for their handling thereof, must certainly be thought innocent until proven guilty before one would contemplate such a charge. The fact that SSG forbid their parishioners to read The Four Marks or told their parishioners they should not present themselves at the altar rails if they attend una cuм heretic Masses (please correct me if I am wrong, I base this on hear-say), or allowed reprehensible practices to continue at their school, should not be used as “evidence” against Bishop Dolan to “prove” his sudden beef with Bishop Sanborn is out of fear that some parishioners may go over to Bishop Sanborn. For that is a serious charge which I doubt anyone familiar with the four last things would make themselves guilty of. The fact that those placed in leadership positions in the world do apparently stupid things when they are not stupid, but bought, does not mean money holds more sway than God over our clergy. Apart from the Thuc issue, which already is definitively settled, the other issues, either side of which is not something which our clergy can be called “stupid” over. These are serious issues and should be definitively settled to the extent that they can be. But I believe at this point they would be satisfactorily settled to the reasonable mind by now if they could be settled apart from a valid pope ruling. The unsettled issues, and debatable controversies, such as the pre-1955 liturgy, the una cuм heretic issue, and to a lesser extent, the Cassiciacuм theory (as it goes against the classical Bellarmine teaching, and seems to go against cuм ex Apostolatus Officio and what the vast majority of theologians taught regarding a heretical pope, should not be taught as definitively settled, by lay people, or clergy in my opinion. Neither side on these issues should stand condemned, or not associated with, or considered second rate Catholics in any sense. Any division on these issues which results in the alienation of others, or mean-spirited castigations against our brothers in Christ is a grand waste of time, instigated by the devil, for which we will burn more terribly than we can imagine in Purgatory, at best. Yet we should be able to have rational and civil discussions on the issues. This is done by civil and virtuous Catholics who are not out to look good, or boost their ego, or show how smart they are, or make the “opposition” feel bad. This must be done in a dispassionate, objective way, logic is allowed voice, facts rule the roost, and truth reigns supreme. So, my advice to avoid Purgatory or burn less is simply to follow the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Let that always, without exception, be your guide with others in a public format. The goal is not to drag the name of one who dares to hold a different opinion than you through the mud, or undermine his credibility, or hurt his feelings, or make him feel bad. The goal is TRUTH! From an article in Novus Ordo Watch: We ask all who participate in discussing this to please be respectful of other participants and not to rush to unwarranted conclusions, especially not concerning others’ motives or intentions. Some people have the nasty habit of assuming bad faith or ill will in those who disagree with them.
In a controversy of such great magnitude and seriousness as the present one, we must bear with one another charitably. Those who are on the stricter side will be tempted to see their opponents as lax, compromisers, liberals, relativists, and worse. Those on the more permissive side will be tempted to see their opponents as scrupulous, moralistic, legalistic, self-righteous, etc.
Let us keep in mind the exhortations and admonitions given by Our Lord Himself with regard to how to treat our brothers:
Quote
But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Quote
Judge not, that you may not be judged, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(Matthew 5:22; 7:1-2)
These admonitions do not preclude
all judgment, of course, but
rash judgment, as well as rash
suspicion. It is
unjust to attribute to fellow-Catholics we disagree with, evil motives, moral laxity, rigorism, self-righteousness, etc., without compelling evidence that cannot reasonably be explained any other way. We are to err on the side of
excusing the faults we see in others, not on the side of finding fault. Let a simple rule of thumb guide the combox discussion: Before denouncing a fellow-Catholic as an immoral monster, assume that he is simply
sincerely mistaken. And consider, moreover, that perhaps the one who is sincerely mistaken is
you (yes,
you!). If both sides observe that reasonable rule, it may just happen that even a passionate exchange of arguments will yield good fruits.
All this can be summed up nicely in the famous maxim attributed to St. Augustine: “In essential things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.”
Topic: Heiner/TR attacks CMRI (Read 19504 times)