Hi, guys!
I promised you some "context", so here goes. Warning: This is a long, long, LONG post. Too long for Twitter, so I decided to create a blog post instead.
Why am I going to such length to discuss my history with two or three people I barely even know? I'm not sure, exactly. I felt compelled, I suppose. Feel free to take anything I say to heart, disregard it all, feed it to the dog, whatever works. My purpose here is not to challenge, but to inspire, because I have a history that I think you'll find interesting.
My Story
I grew up with no Faith at all and married into a Sedevacantist family in 1987. At the time, we attended Mass with Father Eugene Berry in Aurora, Colorado. If you know of Father Berry, well, let's just say that you know of Father Berry.
I give Father Berry tremendous credit for forming me as a Catholic, for teaching me discipline and temperance, and helping to inspire in me a "First Fervor" after my Baptism in 1990 that lasted a good five to six years.
As part of that First Fervor, being young, stupid and fervent and seeing a world that needed what God had given me, I set my sites on sharing my Faith with anyone who would listen. Father Berry was aligned with his Econe brethren at that time, so of course, I used Bishop Sanborn and Father Cekada as resources. Their "library" wasn't what it is now, of course, but it was still useful.
At that time, the Internet was starting to take shape, but there was no Google, no Social Media and no useful on-line resources. So, armed with the Bible, Denziger, Sanborn/Dolan/Cekada (let's call them "SDC") material, some Tan Books and a firm conviction in my Faith, I launched headlong into the world of discussion forums and chat rooms.
Guys, by about 1995 or so, I was you!!! Same convictions, same theology, same resources, same arguments, same confidence, even much of the same language. Now, for perspective, my "outreach" was barely 1% of Novus Ordo Watch.
JPII was nowhere near the bastion of Modernist wonder that Francis is. And given the limits of information flow and JPII being more modest about his heresy, we maybe had one or two events each year that really generated a buzz.
The Sede movement was not much to speak of at that juncture. Of course, you had a nice hub in Cincinnati and the Gibson/Omlar clan was very active in Perth, Australia. But the CMRI was more-or-less non-existent and still climbing out from the Bishop Shukart disaster. Bishop Kelly had already gone his own way. You could find some traditional chapels at traditio.com already, I believe, but as we know, that ended up being a toxic soup of indult and True Masses. And "Father" Morrison was mostly a fraud.
I was on a veritable island, because there just weren't many of us. I'm not honestly sure there were even 50 websites where a Sedevacantist discussion could be had, and I'm not sure there were more than about 20 of us working to advance the Sede cause. Or maybe there were and I just wasn't aware of them, I can't say for sure. In all of my days of taking on the NO, though, I don't think I ever encountered another Sede.
So, What Happened?
To make a long story long (haha), God started me on a journey that I can only begin to describe.
First, my wife and I started to watch Father Berry slowly lose his health, followed by his other faculties. I know it was a source of concern for SDC and others, but Father cut himself off from his compatriots and only made things worse.
He began increasingly blurring the line, from the pulpit, between Church teaching and his personal opinion. Unchecked for many years, he got to where he'd announce that rainbows were evil because they were a symbol of the gay movement. Watching football on Sunday was a profanation of Sunday (although he enjoyed the evening news, so that was not a problem). And perhaps worst of all, "Love" was a topic not to be discussed because it wreaked of the Novus Ordo and Modernism.
We were eventually pushed out of his chapel over a dispute regarding, of all things, the Lord of the Rings (Father Berry saying it was forbidden because "Middle Earth" distorted nature). So we moved on to the only other viable chapel in the Denver area, which happened to be Father Joseph Pfeiffer and the SSPX. We had learned about the CMRI by this point and had met Bishop Pivarunas, but he had no chapel in Denver (a CMRI chapel opened up a couple of years later).
We actually loved Father Pfeiffer. As an aside, I'll tell you that he pulled my wife aside into his office and hounded her about the CMRI and the fact that we didn't send our children to his school. She ripped.....his.....head off argumentatively (calmly and completely reasonably), but we at least respected the fact that he was humble in defeat.
We floated around Colorado for another 5 years or so, then God sent us to Las Vegas (40 weeks in the desert), and now to Omaha.
Humbled and contrite, I have learned an incredible amount about my Faith, the times we live in, and life in general. As I reflect on the journey, I feel compelled to share my lessons, sort as if I were talking to myself from 15 years ago. Because, in a certain sense, I kind of am. Please don't take these as debate topics. Accept them as the humble meanderings of a troublemaking old man (OK, I'm only 50).
I don't say any of the following to show you "wrong" in anything. Only that, seeing things in an entirely new light than I saw them 15+ years ago, I feel like what you see in black-and-white, I now see in color. What you see on the page, I see in three dimensions. It's simply experience talking.
So enough about me, here are some of the lessons I've learned along the way:
Lesson 1: Trust but Verify
We have no shepherd. And our pastors are asked to do more-or-less the impossible. Priest, counselor, accountant, travel agent, teacher, people-person, confessor, sermon-giver, the list is endless. There are so many who do such an incredible job, but they're not infallible. They make mistakes.
We can never let our admiration for our clergy replace the due diligence that we need to do in learning our own Faith. Bishops and priests lead souls to Heaven, but also to perdition.
I've heard religious say, "Don't listen to so-and-so, he's a layman". Hogwash! Luther was clergy. Bugnini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio, all clergy. What you can say for clergy is that their "highs are higher" (thanks to their learning), but their lows are lower (thanks to their positions of authority).
Trust but verify.
Lesson 2: To a Novus Ordo Catholic and many SSPXers, the Catholic Faith is what the Pope says it is (today)
I learned this lesson relatively early on.
It was May, 1999, and JPII had just committed the sacrilege of kissing the Koran. I remember reading the news and presenting it to a discussion forum out on freerepublic.com.
Hostility ensued. "Show me a photo or we'll run you out of here. You'd better have proof." "That's an outrageous accusation. You should be ashamed".
I was corresponding with John Lane at the time and asked him if he had a photo. He took a couple of days and found the iconic photo.
I presented the photo and opened the discussion again and I'll never forget the response.
The most ardent, liberal pro-NO member of the group was outraged. "That's a Coptic Bible. If that's the Koran, this changes everything."
Well, of course, we know how that turned out. It WAS the Koran, and it changed.....absolutely nothing.
I was mystified. I was engaging maybe 15-20 NO Catholics on this forum, and there was a little bit of concern expressed ("Well, I wouldn't have done it, but he's the Pope and he plays by different rules"), but the ineffectiveness of that photo in sending NO's for cover affected me deeply, and made me understand that I was operating in a different world and under a different set of rules than I thought I was operating.
It wasn't until sometime later that I realized that NO's have a completely different foundational belief system than we do. Courtesy, of course, of Hell itself.
To us (to the Church), the Deposit of Faith is a three-legged combination of Sacred Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial teachings.
To the NO, the Deposit of Faith has become a personality cult, a moving target, a bastardization of Papal Infallibility.
I'm sure you've had many a time where you've shown NO's shocking, even surreal abuses committed by their popes and the NO's are completely unmoved. I honestly don't think it's because they lack sincerity (in most cases, anyway, there's plenty of insincerity out there). I think it's because they don't understand the simple principle that Catholicism IS the Deposit of Faith, not the Pope's whim.
If you want to win over a NO intellectually, you need to focus on that foundation. Until NOs understand what Catholicism really is, there is literally nothing Francis could do to cause them to leave the NO.
Lesson 3: Opinionism is a vice, but "Conclusionism" can be just as bad, if not worse
Somewhat before I set out into the world of online forums, I engaged in an ecumenical exercise (True Ecumenism -- the search for Truth) with my brother, a raving Calvinist.
As with any debate with a Calvinist, the discussion came around to Pre-Destination. The logic of his argument was more or less what you would expect, "Ephesians 1:5" blah blah blah, "No such thing as free will", blah blah blah.
What really stood out, though, was his conviction.
I said something along the lines of, "You're misinterpreting Ephesians 1:5. The context has nothing to do with your definition of Pre-Destination".
His response astounded me:
"Listen. The Holy Spirit and I are one. I subsist in Him and Him in me. The two of us are effectively indistinguishable. If you disagree with me, you disagree with the Holy Spirit. You reject the Bible. You're destined for Hell."
Whoa! I guess that settles THAT.
It was my first of many encounters with "Conclusionism".
"Conclusionism", in my mind, is the personal derivation of truths not specifically taught by source documents. Or something like that.
It's rampant among Protestants, of course, whose 33,000 different sects can't universally agree on pretty much anything the Bible says. Of course, most every Protestant will tell you that HIS conclusions are the only truly Biblical conclusions. It's kind of pathetic.
But it's also rampant in Traditional Catholic circles. The Home Aloners, of course, are the masters of "Conclusionism". They have their 200 (or whatever) Bible and Magisterial quotes that condemn more or less everybody and everything. Don't question their conclusions. They'll call you an apostate and slash your tires.
I had a discussion with a Home Aloner a couple of years ago, and after weeks of trying to talk sense into her and convince her that Sedevacantism wasn't a "cult", I finally asked her the question: "So, in your opinion, of the 7 billion people currently on earth, how many people do you believe are destined for Heaven? 100? 150?"
Another astounding answer:
"That sounds about right."
Woof. What a dour existence. What unbelievable arrogance. But it's where Conclusionism took her.
I'm sure you've noticed in our brief dialogue that I'm particularly sensitive to "Conclusionism". If you want to convince me of a doctrinal Truth or interpretation of modern events, just give me the facts. Let me make my own conclusions. Don't just point me to Denziger, show me what Denziger says (simply pointing me to the resource comes off as lazy).
When you try to make the conclusions for me, you offend my dignity and leave me rolling my eyes like I do with the Calvinists and the Home Aloners. And I know that you're right.
How scary is that?
"Francis says X, the Magisterium says Y": Good argument.
"Francis says X, therefore he's a heretic": Annoying
"Francis says X, renounce him as Pope or go to Hell": Offensive
Lesson 4: Our Case Truly is not as Air-Tight as we think it is
I realize we left off the Twitter discussion with your saying that no other conclusion was possible in regards to Francis. I do basically agree with you there (I'm playing Devil's Advocate almost as much as anything), but here's my concern:
You call it a "Dogmatic certainty" that Francis is a heretic. Well, guess what? NOs will tell you that it's a "Dogmatic certainly" that Matthew 16:18 ("...and the gates of Hell shall not prevail") preclude the possibility of a heretical Pope.
And guess what else? They're backed by the Bible. You're backed by deduction. Not good.
And when you start down the road of calling your conclusions "Dogmatically certain", it invariably devolves into Lutherans and Born Again Christians arguing about the Baptism of Children -- a relatively useless exercise.
Think about it: Are you more confident in your positions than the Dimond Brothers are in theirs? They have very solid, authoritative teaching backing their opposition to Baptism of Blood and Desire. And great confidence.
They're dead wrong, mind you. But they have Church teaching behind them. They have confidence. In their minds, they're simply obeying Church Law and Magisterial tradition. Just like you.
Dittos for the Home Aloners. They're an awful, horrible group IMHO, filled with venom and self-righteousness, but are their Bible quotes wrong? Their Church teachings wrong? Are their conclusions wrong? We say they're wrong, but then ask yourself the question, "Who died and made US the judge of that?"
We have no authority. We claim the Church's authority by virtue of following traditional teachings, but so what? So do a dozen other groups. So do Old Catholics. So do the Greek Orthodox.
I met a guy in Las Vegas who sincerely believed that God had given HIM Peter's keys back in 1962 and that he was the guy who was going to unite the Remnant Church in its teaching that the Second Coming would happen on a Pentecost Sunday. No joke.
Obviously, the guy was just a crazy old man, but never forget that, to a typical NO, you and I look just as ridiculous.
We trace our lineage back to St. Peter, but not really. Believing that the Church is in a 58-year state of pontifical suspended animation certainly makes sense to us, but it's hard to sell to your typical "reasonable man".
We call the other claimants to the vacated Truth "arrogant" and "misguided". They call us "arrogant" and "misguided". Perhaps we're ALL arrogant and misguided. God alone knows.
Lesson 5: Our Strength should be in our Infirmity, not in our Intellectual Prowess
"My grace is sufficient for thee", God said to St. Paul, who gloried in nothing other than his infirmity.
Yet, we, as St. Paul's disciples, rely on our intellects, our snappy conclusions, our research and our confidence to convert others.
I found the CMRI in 2003. My wife and I drove to Omaha to get a break from Father Berry and Bishop Pivarunas sought us out and discussed our situation with us.
What I quickly learned about the CMRI was that they are not out for Theological conquest, not out for riches, not even ambitious about having a large flock. They simply want to do God's Will and preserve the Faith as it stood in 1958, until God sees fit to fix the situation with the Holy See (which is now WAY beyond human means of fixing).
One of Father Berry's "hot buttons" had been the morality of heart transplants. He had fired up his entire congregation about the evils of heart transplants, and ran a particular family out of his Church in eastern Colorado after they had saved one of their children with a heart transplant.
I asked him at one point what his Authority was for forbidding heart transplants. To my horror, I realized (after I had been convicted in his position), that his "Authority" was, 1) an obscure, secular magazine article that made the claim that heart transplants could be abused by misapplying the concept of "brain death", and 2) an ancient writing (from a non-authoritative source) that putrification was the only sure sign of death, thus making heart transplants immoral.
Compelling, I suppose, but authoritative enough to order members of his flock to let their child die? I don't think so. What would the courts have said if the family had complied with Father Berry? Woof.
We asked Bishop Pivarunas about the same issue. He knew it was a hot button for Father Berry, so he had documentation ready for us. He had a document from Pope Pius XII, stating that God was the Author of life and death and, of course, the Church is His Instrument on earth, but that there reaches a point where Ecclesiastical judgment needs to defer to the ethics of medical professionals guided by Catholic principles.
Bishop Pivarunas was simply following the clear counsel provided by Pope Pius XII. Not using his force of will. Not simply pointing me to Denziger. But providing authoritative Church teaching on the subject.
What I came to understand as I transitioned over to the CMRI way of thinking is that we are but custodians during this time of upheaval and chaos. It's really not our place to be imposing our will on the Church. We should not be agents of Church evolution. If we try to help it evolve, it will evolve in "N" different directions, where "N" is the number of valid Sedevacantist bishops.
There was a time when many Traditionalists were calling for unity within the movement. I scoffed. "Sure, every Bishop will be more than happy to have every Traditionalist marching under his particular banner."
I said it more or less in jest, but the reality is, it presents a horribly prideful image of who we are and what we really stand for. Far too often, Traditional clergy make of themselves "mini-Popes" and define doctrine that the Church has not defined. I understand the need for clarity, but like I said, our strength should be in our infirmity. Just stick to the tried-and-true. If the Church is vague on defining the Ordinary Magisterium, we should be vague on defining the Ordinary Magisterium. There's no need to play SuperMan, God has this under control.
This is why I feel passionately about the 1955 Holy Week reforms. I think the reforms stink, personally, I don't like them. But who am I to place my judgment above that of Pope Pius XII? At what point did our bishops and priests take that authority upon themselves? And why didn't they consider the dissension it would create?
Lesson 6: Years from now, people won't remember your arguments, they'll only remember how you made them feel
Back in my debating days, I met a CNO named John. Great guy. Patent lawyer from Minnesota. Beautiful family. Two young boys at the time, both born on Marian feast days, both given "Mary" as middle names.
We went round and round and round for the better part of six months, discussing the Novus Ordo, the state of the Church, the papacy and what-not.
We really didn't move each other's "dials" any, I don't think, with our arguments. He hated the situation in the Church. He danced around JPII's shenanigans and knew (and admitted) he was dancing, but I also danced a bit around the Thuc Consecrations and Supplied Jurisdiction. He thought SJ was a Sede fabrication. Supplied Jurisdiction is legit, but it's a difficult sell outside the Choir.
We ended up spending about 80% of our time talking about what we agreed on, our concerns for the Church and what our families were up to.
In the end, I don't think we really changed each others' minds at all, but I think our Charity for one another built in the other a certain affinity for the other's position. Perhaps it shouldn't have, but there you have it.
My belief is that Faith, in a real-world sense, is 90% emotion and 10% reason. It should be the other way around, but it's not the way God made us. We're weak vessels. We go where we find happiness and joy.
My wife and I have 10 children, one in the Seminary (and one joining the Convent in August) and, most importantly, all 10 still in the Faith (ages ranging from 28 to 10).
It was fascinating for us to watch a generation of children grow up around us. There were families that were incredibly holy and pious and generous who ended up losing their children to the world, and others who appeared to be a complete mess, but somehow managed to keep their children in the Faith through adulthood.
What we came to realize is that there is a single, common denominator to all of the successes and failures we've seen: In those families where the Faith was associated with happy memories, children stayed in the Faith. In families where happy memories were few due to stress, too much work, too strict an application of the Faith or what-not, children fell away.
In the words of St. John Bosco to his children, "Have fun, just don't sin." Families that had fun together, stayed together. Prayer is important too, don't let me belittle that, but I saw a number of families pray together often and ultimately fall apart. The families that laughed together rarely did.
I'm always mindful of this when I'm discussing Faith (or anything else) with people. If I can make happy memories with them, I can move them closer to (or help keep them in) the Faith.
Lesson 7: Prayer and sacrifice have more impact on conversions than logic and reason
The CMRI has a particular chapel, I really shouldn't say where (it doesn't matter), that is an enigma.
The priest is not much of a people person, not much of an administrator and gives dreadfully dry sermons.
There are two Masses on Sundays, and there are two warring factions that have strongly, um, dislike each other -- one faction all goes to first Mass, and the other all goes to second Mass.
By all objective measures, the parish should be in meltdown and Bishop Pivarunas should be working to shut it down. But the parish thrives. It's huge. New members all the time. It makes no sense.
The conclusion that we've all drawn as we marvel at the situation is that the priest, albeit perhaps not ideally suited for parish life, is a champion of prayer and sacrifice and it is through his virtue and grace that the parish flourishes. It really is amazing.
God loves prayer. We all know that. But experience has taught me that He loves sacrifice even more. We've seen multiple times where young couples who take their courtship responsibilities seriously are rewarded with glorious wedding days -- and champions of the Faith who live holy, charitable and sacrificial lives are often "rewarded" with the holiest of deaths.
After dragging our family through 8 moves in 9 years, through some wretched places, my wife decided to give up coffee for a year as a deal with St. Philomena to find us a nice house. St. Philomena delivered a house that feels like paradise, two doors down in the country from the CMRI girls' boarding house (we have three teenage daughters).
If you want to convert souls, try giving up coffee.
Lesson 8: In the final analysis, there are two truly "Essential" things: Love of God and sorrow for our sins
Yes, adherence to Catholic orthodoxy is an important thing. I don't deny that. And yes, we should be Apostolic in our outlook and help to spread the Gospel to a world that so desperately needs it.
But God put us on this earth to know, love and serve Him first and foremost. I had a revelation awhile back that simply opening my heart to God and saying "I love you" can be a pinnacle of prayer and the first steps to growing in the Spiritual life.
Protestants like to say that our Spiritual life is all about a developing "a personal relationship with Jesus". And because it's said in Protestant phraseology, it's a concept that, for many years, I pooh-pooh'ed.
But you know what? Our Spiritual life really is all about developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That really is what it's all about.
Conclusions
As I thought through this tome in my head, I originally intended to add a bunch of recommendations at the end, like going to a place like fisheaters.com and finding a CNO like my friend John and engaging in some True Ecunemism (pursuit of Truth); or having a debate with a Home Aloner so you can experience how off-putting "Conclusionism" is; or reading some GK Chesterton just for the sake of lightening the mood.
But then it hit me: Hey, I'm an "Opinionist". I don't draw conclusions.
So, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I trust you. :-)
God Bless, guys. Thanks so much for listening!
