Something seems to be up. Cardinal Mueller made the manifesto of faith. Cardinal Burke, then later Bishop Shneider set up websites. Bishop Shneider talks about the possible actions to be taken with a heretical pope. Cardinal Sarah has just released his book.
This will probably make you want to literally throw up. But it shows what we are all up against. Straight out of hell. Yuk, Yuk, Yuk. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/decadence-of-godfried-danneels-belgium-pedophilia/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a...ardinal-who-was-a-huge-pope-francis-supporter
No, the Catholic Church is what it is, exactly, because it is the one, true Church founded by Jesus, and protected by the Holy Spirit. If you can't get that right, nothing else you say about the Church is worth paying attention to.
Ezdras, you sound a lot like Ron Conte's brand of theology. What kind of thing is it to say that someone is less educated who attends the Latin Mass? You do realize that it was Pope Saint John Paul II who sent a letter to the Bishops to allow the Latin Rite to be celebrated right?
You've made a lot of accusations here. A lot here are quite upset by many of the words and actions of Pope Francis, but I recall very few accusations of heresy or calls for schism-indeed that would be considered a worst nightmare scenario for most on here, I'd suggest. Although we could be mistaken as we might lack the appropriate standard of 'education' that would pass muster with you. You seem very certain of the rightness of your case, but if your primary mode of judgement is to follow the opinion of the pope and the majority of the bishops, I'd suggest that if you had been around in the time of Saint Athanasius, you might have been an enthusiastic Arian. In those times, if you recall, it was the 'low educated' who held the line. I'd suggest that no education is better for the soul than a misguided one. There are very few educational institutions that have not been contaminated to various degrees by the cultural marxist sexual revolution. Do you consider that the saving of millions of innocent lives is a greater priority for the Church than the salvation of millions of souls? Saving lives is a secular priority. In the long run, it's only a delaying tactic-we all die anyway, and if they're innocent, they'd be the lucky ones in the terms of Eternity. Another question: why do we not have the right to criticise Pope Francis, but you allow yourself to accuse Pope Benedict of fomenting schism and infer his lack of holiness by omission and comparison with his predecessors? I'd very much doubt St. Pope John Paul II would second your assessment of Benedict.
Ah, intellectuals. Like all those fishermen Christ gathered around him. But hey, these intellectual boyos nowadays know better. It's not an accusation against Pope Francis, who didn't say it (although he made no attempt to deny it), but one of his henchmen recently described him as transcending the Scriptures and the Fathers-boy, what education can do nowadays. Sure, we know now that those ancient Churchmen were really stupid-they didn't even have tape recorders, for goodness sake. In fairness, I'm sure Ezdras means, by intellectual theologians, Aquinas and Augustine.
Yes, utterly satanic. The normalisation of paedophilia was ongoing at that time. I'd never even realised there was such a thing until reading what was either a Newsweek or a Time magazine article on it, while sitting in the waiting room of my dentist's surgery in either '79 or '80. What really caused my jaw to drop to the floor wasn't just the content, but the matter of fact way it was presented. This normalisation ceased for two main reasons, in my opinion. Firstly, the backlash was stronger than the perverts expected. Secondly, the frequency of the phenomenon in the Church represented an opportunity for the liberals that could not be resisted, so the interests of the child-rapists were postponed in order to concentrate on damaging the Catholic Church. The article in question explains why there has been such a dramatic collapse in the Belgian Catholic Church. If that's what your local Church appears to be at, it would be understandable that one might flee.
I took Bishop Schneider's proposal to mean that in the face of grievous error it is the duty of the Dean of the College Of Cardinals (currently Cardinal Sodano) to approach the Pope in private and correct him. In charity and to avoid scandal this would be done more than once. If, after this, the Pope does not correct his errors then it is the duty of the Dean to make a public correction in the form of a Profession of Faith addressing and clarifying the errors to the faithful and also an appeal to them to pray for the Holy Father. Realistically, with the Church leadership in the shambles it is currently in, Bishop Schneider probably does not expect the Dean to do this so he goes on to say if this does not happen then it is the duty of any Cardinal or Bishop, whether in a group effort or individually, to make the correction. If the hierarchy fails to do this, the last recourse would be for the laity to do it. This would take the form of theologians and other qualified people issuing a statement. I think Bishop Schneider lists this as the last recourse because it is the least likely to have any effect. After all, this has effectively almost been done already with the Filial Appeal. Though to be clear that was more a plea to the Pope to correct the errors. It was however ignored by the Vatican so one would logically think a correction would likewise be ignored.
How many "intellectuals" are famous for the heresies they gave their name to, and how many "poorly educated but good people" are remembered for having a heresy named after them?
If I am remembering correctly, almost all of the heresies the Church has fought were started by and/or named after clergy. Arianism, Nerstorianism, Apollinarism, etc. Interestingly one of the heresies that was not started by clerics is Americanism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy) Many well meaning Catholics do not even realize this is a heresy. Essentially it is the idea that the Church and State should be entirely severed from each other. This might today more properly be called "Westernism" as it is common throughout all Western countries now. It smacks of Modernism as well.
My guess is they are digging in for the long haul and attempting to organize the remnant of faithful. Preparing a means to offer them true shepherding and leadership during the dark period ahead. God will never abandon the flock.
Here is an article by Fr. Hunwicke in response to Bishop Schneider's Article: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2019/03/ad-multos-annos.html
I call it secular humanism and today it is rampant. JFK was self admittedly all for it at least during his campaign. Tells us something about that spirit of the age for that time. From one of his campaign speeches in 1960; "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him." https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
I stand with the Cardinals and Bishops who stand with Our true Church. I admire them for standing up against this nightmare we all seem to be dealing with. I have heard nothing from Pops Francis about these abortions up to Birth. I am heartbroken about this. The things with I have read it and it explains everything
I will stand with the Bishops of the true Church. Who will not allow Jesus to be trampled on esp in the Eucharist. It will be up to us the faithful to speak up. Many are protesting these perversions and heresies. I will never stay silent when it comes to my Jesus
Yep! There you go. The heresy of Americanism in one neat statement. I think in the modern world most "Catholics" have become so out of touch with what the Church actually teaches that they are shocked when confronted with it. Most of the laity would look at the above statement and think nothing is wrong with it. In fact they would think it is a "good".
Here is another important article, this one by Christopher Ferrara in support of Bishop Schneider's recent text: https://fatima.org/news-views/bishop-schneiders-history-lesson/
It seems that the lines of thought are congealing after much confusion. A valid Pope cannot be "un-Poped" by any power on Earth. I have to issue a mea-culpa. Several years ago I was under the assumption, after much study on the subject, that a heretical Pope would lose office once shown to be a pertinacious heretic. I even espoused this several times here on the forum. I didn't come up with that on my own, I researched it quite a bit at the time and my understanding was that this was true from writers who delved into the subject. They cited Saints and Doctors of the Church who ruminated and wrote about this possibility. It appears that they, and I, were most probably wrong and I am sorry if I led any others to believe that. So unless Cardinal Burke or someone else comes out and states that Bishop Schneider is wrong and had valid reasons for saying so, I think we must go with the assumption that any valid Pope is irremovable.
A further thought, if Cardinal Burke comes out publicly and backs or agrees with what Bishop Schneider has laid out, then there would be few reasons anymore for the Vatican to hold back. They would see that there was no strong opposition forthcoming and could implement any agenda. In the past few years we have already seen events speeding up like a snowball rolling downhill. This might be seen by the Vatican as a sort of capitulation by the opposition.
