Since you cited my post in your response I just want to be clear. I never said Pope Francis is not a heretic. I also never said he is one. That is beyond my competence and authority to judge. All I said was Bishop Schneider wrote that even if a Pope commits pertinacious heresy he cannot be removed from office. He seems to have laid out a good argument. As opposed to what you wrote, I do not think the Church needs any of the "reforms" being thrust upon it. They are not reforms in the true sense of the word anyway. They are an abandonment of the foundations upon which the Church was built. A compromise with the world. But then what do I know? I'm just a stupid Trad.
I think you have it all backwards, Esdras. This is not reform in this papacy, it is compromise with the world. It is trying to bring acceptance of sin into God’s Holy Catholic Church. There are only a few brave Cardinals who are holding on to the Truth. As St Anthony of the Desert said, “when the world and the Church are one , then will come the end.”
Cardinal Sarah and Bishop Schneider are not schismatics in any way, shape, or form and for you to say they are is serious calumny against two Hierarchs of the One True Church.
Um...no Orthodox patriarchs are in any kind of communion with the Pope. That is kind of the entire point of their schism I bet if you asked them if they submit to the Catholic Popes they would have some choice words for you... I agree with you that it is not the place of the laity to brand anyone a heretic, much less the Pope, which is why I never do it, but I also note that your sin of calumny against Bishops and Cardinals has not been retracted so you are in no position to point fingers at others.
Praetorian is right: no Orthodox patriarchs are in Communion with the Pope. Not for thousands of years. Therein lies the crux of this matter. It’s simple. Not every Pope in the past 2000 years has been a good Pope, btw.
Ezdras accused Bishop Schneider of setting up a second Church, despite Bishop Schneider repeatedly saying that there is only one Church and that the Pope cannot be removed, even if the Pope is a heretic. Ezdras also tells us that a major decision like the election of a Pope is planned decades in advance. At the same time, he tells us that the election of the Pope at a conclave is the work of the Holy Spirit. The only evidence we have of a conspiracy to set up a "2nd Church" is the self-styled St. Gallen Mafia group which plotted to install Pope Francis. Was the Holy Spirit in St. Gallen, inspiring a small group of Bishops to plot a "reformation" of the Church and the election of their chosen candidate as Pope when the Holy See wasn't vacant? Was the Holy Spirit in St. Gallen all those years ago? Was the Holy Spirit at the Land O'Lakes gathering which brought a wrecking ball in its "reform" of Catholic education? https://newmansociety.org/land-o-lakestatement-caused-devastation-50-years/ The creme-de-la-creme of Catholic intelligentsia who signed that document included: then-Fr. Theodore McCarrick, President of the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico, 7 Holy Cross priests from Notre Dame University, and a number of Jesuits representing various Jesuit Universities, among them Fr. Vincent O'Keeffe who later became Vicar General of the Jesuits. Holy Cross priest Fr. Hesburgh, then President of the International Federation of Catholic Universities, is credited with drafting the document. The document was also signed by a Bishop. Bishop Hallinan of Charleston who was a big supporter of liturgical reform and ecumenism at Vatican 11. (He was only aged 56 when he died of Hepatitis - an illness which first afflicted him shortly after the Council). Although not everyone who attended the Land o'Lakes gathering signed the document, the only attendee who criticised it was the President of Catholic University of America. Bishop Hallinan was on the board of CUA and opposed the dismissal of theologian Charles Curran. Fr. Curran was an advocate of the homosexual agenda. Read about Charles Curran here (I think he may still be a priest): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curran_(theologian) . Bishop Hallinan was also friends with Hans Kung and was a mentor to Fr. (later Cardinal) Bernardin. It's no secret now that JFK got plenty of advice from "intellectual" priests during his campaign. This, from the Newman Society article about the Land O'Lakes document was news to me: "Also intriguing is the signature by John Cogley, a leftist scholar representing the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. It’s not clear what he was doing at Land O’ Lakes, except that he was a celebrated intellectual in certain circles. He had been religion editor of the New York Times and a principal writer of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech advocating the separation of church and state. He later dissented from Humanae Vitae and became an Episcopalian. Here's a piece from Patrick Madrid about how Catholic priests (most if not all of them theologians and many of them Jesuits) turned the Kennedys pro-abortion: https://patrickmadrid.com/sons-of-p...lic-priests-turned-the-kennedys-pro-abortion/ Of course, another very famous Jesuit, although not a theologian, went out of his way to sing the praises of an Italian politician famous for promoting abortion. No doubt they all sometimes recite the Nicene Creed at Mass. Do they cross their fingers at the part about the Holy Spirit being the Lord and giver of life, or do they mentally substitute the word "personhood" for "life" - the abortion lobby's current fall-back for justifying the murder of pre-born infants? While the old saying "education is no load to carry" is as true today as it always was, education is no substitute for faith. Jesus calls us to be holy as He is holy. Academic achievement is not particularly virtuous and if it results in loss of the fear of God it's far from being indicative of wisdom. Old heresies don't die. They can, and often do, adapt like a virus. https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/06/07/gnosticism-today/ Americanism is another heresy that never went away. Jesuit priest and theologian (influential at Vatican 2 and advisor to the Kennedys) was affected by a strain of that virus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Courtney_Murray Give me a St. Therese any day of the week over any theologian who devotes his skills to seeking loopholes in God's law and passing off the loopholes as "doctrinal development". It would have been more accurate for Ezdras to say that the Church, especially in developed countries, is exactly in the state it is today because of dissenting intellectual theologians who have been undermining the Deposit of Faith for many decades.
You can take a break any time you want to, but you can't come on here and vilify faithful Catholic Cardinals and Bishops and expect people not to react. Catholics who are faithful like Cardinals Sarah and Burke and Bishops like Schneider do not deserve the abuse they take from people like you. They are standing up for what the Church has always taught. Also, you can't be "a little" in communion with the Pope. Just like you can't be "a little" pregnant. You either are in communion or you are not. The Protestants and the Orthodox sects are heretics and schismatics and are not in communion with the Popes. Just ask them, they will be happy to tell you.
God bless His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider. He is reasonably and respectfully asking for clarification based on what was the constant praxis of the Church. This is what Pope St. John Paul II had decreed in Familiaris Consortio, as summarized by Pope Benedict XVI, who was then Cardinal Ratzinger at the CDF. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ivorced-and-remarried-members-of-the-faithful "5. The doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter, are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of luve for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, "founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion"(9). The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations. 6. Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good of these persons(10) as well as the common good of the Church, have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church's teaching(11). Pastors in their teaching must also remind the faithful entrusted to their care of this doctrine." Sadly some people today want to try and overturn these Papal decrees that by all appearances seemed to be irreformable Catholic doctrine and Church Teaching. Suppose someone tells us tomorrow, God is not the Trinity, Jesus is not God, abortion is ok, contraception is fine, murder is just, blasphemy is ok, ignore all the commandments, we'll just accept it? In Pope St. Pius X's Oath against Modernism, Clergy used to swear, "I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously ... The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm It is right and just to reasonably and respectfully present the constant teaching of the Magisterium as Bp. Athanasius is doing and as His Eminence Cardinal Burke did. That's what Dubias are for, and there is a long Tradition of Dubias. The right to raise doubts like that is even enshrined in Donum Veritatis: "Withholding assent[edit] Donum Veritatis also allows that even if, "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments...some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian, "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum So it is legitimate to do as these good Prelates have done. I personally don't believe the Vicar of Christ can ever become a formal heretic. I thought once that it was possible, after reading some sedevacantist material. But when we study St. Robert's opinion carefully, the Doctor denies it has ever happened; only the Gallicans and others thought it possible, and St. Robert only grants it as a hypothesis; that was also the view of Cardinal Billot after the First Vatican Council, "I said under the supposition of the hypothesis [that a Pope could ever become a heretic]. But the fact that the hypothesis itself is a mere hypothesis, never reducible to an act, appears far more probable, according to Luke 22:32: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith not fail; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. For the voice of all Tradition says we must understand this verse to refer to Peter and his Successors in perpetuity, and it will be professedly declared below, on the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff. But for the time being, it is assumed as absolutely certain. Now, however, even if the words of the Gospel principally regard the public person of the individual teaching ex cathedra, they must be said, as far as preservation from heresy is concerned, to extend also, by a kind of necessity, to the private person of the pontiff". This is only theological opinion, but imho, it's more probable. A Pope may make mistakes, but the Lord has promised in Peter to give him a never-failing faith; but faith fails if a man becomes a heretic. Therefore, even when speaking non-infallibly, it is more likely than not that a Pope cannot be a heretic, that his faith like St. Peter's will not fail. Let us pray for the Holy Father.
Bishop Schneider couldn't make it any clearer that we have another Pope Honorius 1 situation. There's nothing new under the sun: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm The Honorius controversy happened in the 7th century and it was still a hot topic at Vatican 1, 12 centuries later. That's the kind of trouble a Pope's negligence can bring to the Church. I see similarities between St. Sophronius, Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Burke and other faithful prelates. Despite Sergius having the backing of a Pope and a Synod, Sophronius never relinquished his duty to defend and pass on the true faith. He gathered evidence in support of orthodox teaching and communicated that orthodox belief to Metropolitans throughout the world - no easy task back then. He had the senior Bishop of his Patriarchate go to Rome to seek final condemnation of the error. The error was condemned by Honorius' successors and Honorius was posthumously excommunicated by a Church Council 42 years after his death. I can find nothing to suggest that Sophronius sought the resignation of Pope Honorius although we don't know what he would have done had Honorius lived longer or had Honorius' successors not condemned the heresy.
No words were put in your mouth. You wrote that the liturgical actions of Benedict were such that nothing could have divided the community of believers more. Your words in italics are the very definition of schism, that event which represents the ultimate division in the Church. It is you who is raving about the infallibility of Cardinal Sarah. Most here, I'd assert and will gladly withdraw if it appears to be incorrect, have developed the very narrow concept of Infallibility defined by Pius IX at Vatican I. However, the accusation of Cardinal Sarah against the 'intellectuals' is broadly supported by history. Since the early Enlightenment, the majority of whom are loosely described as 'intellectuals' have been antinomian and atheistic. Another false accusation of yours is that we 'hate Vatican II'. If you have read it you will know that what was done to the liturgy was absolutely not intended by the Council, and there are vast confessions and declarations abroad testifying that the intentions of the bishops were hijacked by those who wrecked what was meant to be an organic, cautious development. We dislike Bugnini and co., you can say that alright. We dislike Eucharist Prayers being hurriedly concocted out of whole cloth in trattoria. Time will tell if your notion of self-appointed prophesy will materialise. Thank goodness that the Holy Spirit has not appointed you to the position of power you covet. Your wreckless arrogance is chilling. I await answers to my questions, dare I say Austen?
I accept Vatican II. The Mass, as propagated after VII bears no relationship to what the Council Fathers advocated. The gist of Sacrosanctum Concilium (para 54, specifically) was to maintain the primacy of Latin, but to cautiously allow a modest amount of vernacular. Archbishop Lefebvre actually voted in favour of this policy. However, what the Council decided was not implemented. Those who rejected the Council's wishes and instead gutted the Mass of the Ages and replaced it with a novel, full vernacular one were the true haters of VII. They deliberately disobeyed the decision of the Council. As a Catholic, I am bound to remain in communion with the papacy. I try and say three Hail Mary's every day for Pope Francis, as he requested when he became Pope. I generally manage to do so. This does not mean that I consider him perfect in every way. In fact, my suspicion is that he could be a wicked pope. The Church has had wicked popes before, so this is not unprecedented. I don't consider Pope Francis a heretic. He calculatedly, in my opinion, keeps himself on the right side of the line. Sometimes, he can surprise me, which only leaves me confused; for example, his description of those having abortions as the equivalent of hiring a hit-man was an excellent analogy. Likewise, I was encouraged by his statement that seminaries should reject those of a homosexual disposition. All this, unfortunately, is over-shadowed by the ambiguity of Amoris Laetitia and his unfortunate abandonment of the strict and effective child-protection policy of his predecessor, now further compounded by his tendency to surround himself with those ridden by scandal, perhaps most appallingly in the case of the recently deceased cardinal who accompanied him in his first papal appearance (cf Padraig's recent post above for further, incredible, evidence of the depth of depravity of the latter). I hope Pope Francis dies in office. One papal resignation per half-millenium is already too many. From your attitude, I rather think that he should resign and that you should be the one to replace him. You see yourself as knowing the inner character and beliefs of so many, contrary to their words, even what Cardinal Sarah even thinks and fails to think, and you'd surely sort them out in double quick time. You have bigger problems than me. You need to discern the difference between opposing error and declaring opposition to a personage-they are completely different things. Your logic, if applied contemperaneously, would imply the condemnation of Athanasius. One in the position of Schneider, Burke, Muller (I don't include Sarah, because he has said little that is critical and your extreme condemnation of him seems incoherent) or whoever, has the duty of calling out error or to seek clarification, if their conscience tells them. As I understand it, Pope Francis agreed with Bishop Schneider on the matter of clarifying the Will of God, with respect to the multiplicity of world religions-do you not consider it a good thing that Bishop Schneider should help clear up any possible confusion on matters such as this? Ought he have kept his mouth shut and the laity left scratching their heads? I think you would have been a very enthusiastic Arian, had you had the opportunity. You could then have also enjoyed the 'official position of the Church'-safety in numbers, Truth as democracy. You apparently resemble them in the belief that 'might is right' and that Truth is subject to a vote. Remember, the Church is an Eternal Institution. It is not the church of what's happening now. Her essential Truth hasn't changed in two millenia, and won't. Anyone who sticks with Christ, the Apostles, Augustine, Aquinas et al, as all did up to now, is as Catholic as anyone who went before. Never before was it acceptable to take communion while remaining adulterous. If a large proportion of the Church, even a vast majority decides to go that route, I'm staying where I am, with Christ's Church of the Ages and it won't be my side in schism, no matter what is 'official'.
So you just stated that you don't know much about Bishop Schneider, and yet you accuse him of the serious sin of being out of communion with the Pope? Of being in schism? Your writings are contradictory and confused. Nothing you say makes any sense. Your last line says it all: "If I learned one thing, that was, never try to discuss logically with traditionalists, they will never reason." I am a traditionalist and I reason constantly. I don't think anyone who knows me would accuse me of being unable to reason. What you mean to say is that I will not bend. I will not compromise in the ways that you want me to. Reasoning and compromising are two different things. Jesus did not bend or compromise and so they Crucified Him for it. It is your thought processes that are illogical, not mine. According to your line of reasoning St. Athanasius and St. Hilary were out of communion with the Pope because they did not go along with him and the Arian heresy. You do not have a proper grasp of the Church Teachings on these matters.
Thank you Praetorian for the compassion to respond to confusion. You have spoken with clarity and truth needed.
