 |
| Catholics in the now will be better off than Catholics in the future 'synodal church' |
Latin Massgoers of the PN Diocese have declined the invitation of their Bishop John Adams to make a submission to the October 2024 Synod. They look to Mary, Mother of the Church, the Blessed Virgin who stood at the foot of the Cross without a murmur as Her divine Son endured His Passion, just as the Mystical Body of Christ suffers now, under the thumb of Francis the Usurper, the Peronist, dictator and demagogue, and his heresiarchs.
Amid the hail of insults, imprecations and jeers of the Jews, Mary remained silent. So also should traditional Catholics who are asked to cooperate with the blasphemies offered Our Lord by the ' "ape church" of Francis, prophesied in 1947 by Venerable Fulton Sheen. The ape - i.e. synodal - church proposes a female diaconate, lay preachers, a 'ministry of listening and accompaniment for those who feel excluded from the Church' (read homosexuals). This is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and no one who looks to Mary as a model wants any part in this wretched 'synodal church'.
However, Palmerston North's new Bishop John Adams was anxious to have an orthodox, traditional voice heard by NZ's bishops and ultimately by 'his Holiness' (not that either party will take notice). Forced into this invidious position, given their disgust and dismay at Francis' synodal church, three TLM adherents, disgusted and dismayed by Francis' synodal church, felt morally impeded from giving their signature to the 300-word statement provided to Bishop Adams; Bruce Tichbon and one other have their say here.
First, Bruce (who is of a practical bent):
My initial thoughts on restoring parish governance, some principles for discussion. Some may think this looks too corporate, I would welcome the thoughts of others.
1. The NZCBC document was not made widely known, it appears to have been promulgated only to select groups within the NZ Church, thus limiting the ability of all faithful to participate in synodality before the 5 April deadline.
2. The NZCBC document is incredibly limited in scope, it basically only allows discussion on implementation of co-responsibility. Limiting submissions to 300 words is ridiculous.
3. Co-responsibility has been effectively implemented for many years in many NZ parishes and dioceses, especially Palmerston North which has openly prided itself on these progressive moves.
4. Co-responsibility in PN diocese may claim some successes but it has mostly been a disaster in terms of confused governance and loss of vocations:
- lay leaders have assumed positions of authority, some are unpaid, many are on the Church payroll.
- lay leaders often assume titles and roles equating to the ordained priesthood, and assume near priestly spiritual authority, or challenge and exceed priestly authority.
- with the weakening of the priestly leadership, personality politics take over in the absence of clear lines of authority and governance. Self appointed leaders gather their allies around them; the self appointed leaders compete with each other for control.
- governance confusion abounds. Who is in control - is it the priest or some powerful lay person?
- many priests are left demoralised and emasculated. Local vocations over the past decades are almost zero. The table has been turned, priests are now mistrusted, and accused of clericalism, and even condemned for dressing as priests.
- some priests adopt a lay person as bodyguard, who becomes very powerful and may project the authority of the priest on their own behalf.
- this is not to say all priests are demoralised, or that all laity, even those in positions of power, exceed their positions.
Parish and diocesan structures should be flexible to allow for leadership to flourish according to local needs and personalities- All positions, including the priests', should have job descriptions which show clearly the scope of each person's or committee's authority and who they report to, and who reports to them. Parishes should publish these job descriptions, rather than leave the laity to try to figure out who is in charge
- Clear structure diagrams should be made available to all, showing staff and committee authority and responsibility
- Priests (or if appropriate the bishop) should continue to be the leader and the person of final recourse within the parish
- Where informal roles are created or occur by organic change, these positions should be formally incorporated and notified (the laity can see them and should not be left guessing).
- Where laity feel a particular person is becoming too powerful or authoritarian, consideration should be given to forming a committee to normalise the situation (or incorporate the role into an established committee) and restore the stake of all parish laity
- Parish laity must be engaged in decisions (currently most are not). A team approach is required that is not dominated by a few select individuals. The failure of the current synodality process to attract much interest in the Church is a case in point.
- In all the above, spirituality and synodal processes should be used, as starting points. But spirituality and synodality should not become excuses for lack of transparency, obscure governance, or lack of effective structure.
- Outcomes must also be carefully observed, such as the number of vocations or the number of young adults still attending mass after confirmation or leaving Catholic schools.
 |
| The graphics which graphically illustrate the IQ of synod participants |
The Bishops ask (apparently in all seriousness), “How can we be a synodal Church in mission?” The NZCBC's 'Consultation' is mere tomfoolery and a verbal flummery: no one even knows what the word 'synod' means. With apologies to Winston Churchill, this is nonsense up with which Catholics should not put.
The Church is a hierarchy, founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter, whose God-given "mission" was not to 'listen' but to preach the Gospel, to sanctify and to govern. One only has to observe the lunacy of LGBTQ, particularly transgenderism, which in New Zealand and elsewhere pervades schools, government, police and judiciary https://juliadufresne.blogspot.com/2024/04/trans-men-convicts-right-to-have-women.html to realise how utterly pope, bishops and priests have failed in their mission.
The first duty of the Vicar of Christ is to guard and defend the flock entrusted to him from the assault of the wolves who since the disastrous revolution of Vatican II have put on clericals (in New Zealand usually civvies with a wee cross or big tiki-type pounamu) and masquerade as shepherds. The Church must listen to the Holy Spirit, not to gobbledy-gook. But to hear God, clergy and laity must have more than a passing acquaintance with Him.
 |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUNkocjtA4w |
Over 90 per cent of US Massgoers, says Father Jonathan Meyer, have no idea what the Mass is. They are untaught, ignorant and consequently proud products of the stalking horse that is the Novus Ordo - the concocted, synthetic, Protestant vehicle engine for change by deliberately dumbing-down both clergy and laity, manipulating them to become 'co-responsible' in replacing the authority of God Almighty.
The Church is Christ Himself - His Mystical Body, His truth. The truth cannot change: if 'truth' changes it is not, and never was, the truth. But the usurper pope got away with the effrontery in October last year of declaring that "the Church must change - in favor of the dignity of the people.”. The cardinalate should have risen up in a body at that and demanded his resignation, so saving the Church from the indignity of Cardinal Victor Fernandez' Dignitas Infita and its several heresies. https://www.complicitclergy.com/2024/04/09/three-heresies-in-dignitas-infinita/(It's the first official Vatican document issued with no Latin translation. What was that about dumbing-down, again?)
'The Church exists for mission', say NZ's Bishops. No, the Church exists for God, for His glory and to do His will. That is all she is required to do; that is all the clergy and laity are required to do - God's will, Which will accomplish everything. For that sublime purpose they need to know what God's Will is, and the only way they get to know It is by prayer. The bishops mention prayer just twice (in reference to the consecrated life, implying it's only nuns and monks who pray) - and mention Mary, Mother of the Church, not at all. However, this is only to be expected of men who daily (we assume) celebrate (or - shudder - concelebrate) the Novus Ordo, which does not treat much of the need for prayer to God and His saints but rather of the need for one another, in 'community'.
'Revision to programmes of formation requires extensive discussion and consideration', say the bishops. But not prayer, evidently.
'Respectful listening without judging is a prerequisite for walking together in search of God's will,' they say. So the synodal church eschews judging between right from wrong, for example. And the duty of fraternal correction. In the synodal church, sitting around those dismal tables, all 'listening', one is supposed to swallow heresies when one hears them - or scandal or slander. But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican (Mt 18, 15-18).
The bishops fret about 'ensuring a culture of transparency and respect for the procedures established for the protection of minors and vulnerable people'. Had bishops worldwide since the Second Vatican Council as before it, preached the Gospel and sanctified their flocks as God intended, they wouldn't now be challenged financially and morally with the imperative of 'safeguarding' and all the time, expense and bumff that entails.
The bishops yearn for 'men and women who have an apostolic disposition, distinguished not by their frequent presence in church, but by a genuine evangelical witness in ordinary life.' If men and women are not frequently in church (at the very least, on Sunday) they cannot be genuine evangelical witness, which can be sustained only by the Eucharist. Speaking of which - of the source and centre of our faith - the bishops do precisely once, and never of the Mass.
The bishops are keen to kowtow to 'churches all over the world (which) have expressed a clear request that the active contribution of women would be recognised and valued, and that their pastoral leadership increase in all areas of the Church's life and mission.'
The influence of feminists in the N O Church is painfully obvious, from the women in trouser suits who sprout out of the congregation at the Sign of Peace to bustle about the sanctuary-which-is-no-longer-a-sanctuary, to those who take advantage of their natural female superiority over men in management (a superiority given by God to assist them in their natural role of wife and motherhood), to move in on the poor parish priest - or the bishop - and take over.
Men are everywhere emasculated already, basically by contraception (which the bishops failed to preach against) and abortion (a holocaust the bishops treat with silent complicity). Those wonders of modern 'medicine' have enabled men to take advantage of women who think they've been 'liberated', who abandon home and family for careers in which they outperform men hands-down; especially in the Church, which for Novus Ordo-ite females is tailor-made to supplant caring for families with caring for priests as helicopter parents, as women are wont to be for their children (especially sons).
The bishops 'need to think differently and creatively to establish ministries that are relevant to our local Church and the society we live, with a particular intention to involve young people'.
If New Zealand's bishops intend to involve young people, they should take themselves off to a Latin Mass community such as St Anthony's SSPX, Wanganui to observe three Masses (two Low, one High Sung) every Sunday, the pews bulging with young families, little boys with hand missals, little girls in chapel veils all involved, all except for the occasional baby's lament silent, all genuflecting; the sanctuary crowded at the High Mass with altar boys of all sizes. The sacristies are to be removed to make room for more seating (and kneeling, much more than sitting).
In the carpark before and after Mass St Anthony's parishioners are joyful. They smile at one another, and at strangers. A mother of 12 (the youngest aged 2) might tell you how she's about to go to France with her husband and most of their children to attend the Final Profession of one of her daughters as a Poor Clare. The only problem seems to be that in France you can't hire a vehicle big enough to fit eleven passengers.
And then, last Sunday evening - after the three morning Masses - St Anthony's filled again, on the Vigil of the Annunciation to celebrate the Acies of the Legion of Mary.
As near to the feast of the Annunciation as possible, the whole worldwide Legion both individually and collectively earnestly seeks each year to celebrate the Acies. This ceremony is one of the most beautiful and profound functions of the Legion. What precisely is its purpose and meaning? It presupposes an examination of our relationship to Mary and our practice of true devotion to her in the spirit of St. Louis Marie de Montfort. We seek to renew and express publicly our Consecration to Mary in the condensed and beautiful formula; ‘I am all yours my Queen and my Mother and all that I have is yours.’ What an extraordinary depth of doctrine and devotion are packed into so few words. https://www.legionofmary.ie/news/article/the-purpose-of-the-aciesEmerging from that ceremony, one reader of this blog observed to another that they'd just seen the reason for the extraordinary success of St Anthony's SSPX: devotion to the Mother of God - whom the NZ Bishops do not see fit even to mention in the context of their 'synodal church'.
But would the bishops want to emulate the Society of St Pius X? Or would they think celebrating Mass on a Sunday three times over, while simultaneously hearing confessions, too hard? Would their N O flocks perhaps notice that Latin Massgoers do things like standing on a street corner near the hospital on baby-killing days, holding pro-life billboards, or driving over an hour each way every week for Mass, and back off from the commitment?
The Society of St Pius X does not think 'differently and creatively'. Its priests, inspired by their founder, the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, do as the Catholic Church has done for millennia - until Vatican II. They preach the Gospel, "in season and out of season", speak sternly when necessary in the confessional and think nothing of driving 3 hours to bring the Last Rites to a dying parishioner. They don't just preach the Gospel, they live it.
 |
