Open Apostasy In The Vatican

Fr. Jerome, Guest Post on TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC PRIEST blog

The state of the Church right now is the fault of conservatives, not liberals. Vatican II was hijacked by liberals 50 years ago only because conservatives were sleepy and trusting of men. And this continues in Rome today to a worse extent.

Yes, there will always be liberals who hate Christ, but what is different now from the rest of Church history is that Christ’s closest clerical friends are too afraid to fight for His Church. No, the four Cardinals of the Dubia are nothing like St. Athanasius or St. Maximus the Confessor or St. Nicholas or St. John Chrysostom.

The saints had no need to “hear out” heretics in a “pastoral” manner. There will always be heretics, but that is not the problem. The problem is the want of saints. The saintly bishops of the first 500 years of the Church revealed the poisonous words of heretics, gentle as they be, were sent into exile, and then they were vindicated (usually in their lifetime) for their reckless courage. I see no reckless courage today in the face of open heresy. And this is why the open heresy of four years ago in the Vatican has become an open apostasy in the highest ranks in the Church.

Let me remind the readers of three definitions:

1) Heresy is the denial of even one part of Divine Revelation
2) Apostasy is a full renunciation of the unique and redemptive act of Jesus Christ.
3) Soteriology is the study of salvation.

The false prophet on the Chair of Peter is now espousing a soteriology that is little different from a Unitarian Universalist. We have full apostasy now in the Vatican…and not a single bishop is willing to say anything against full and outright soteriological apostasy? No. Rather, our most “courageous” prelates flex their muscles against a single sexual line in Amoris Laetitia.

This is not courage. It is not courage that no one questions a clearly-forced Papal-resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. It is not courage that no one (except a retired courageous bishop in Texas) questions a tampered-Conclave to elect our current false-prophet.

Like the Republicans in the 1980s in the USA who promised to end abortion in order to keep their office (but did very little) I fear these “conservative” bishops are doing as much damage to the Church as the gay Cardinals who hate the Church and are overturning every point of Our Faith. Why? Why are the former like the latter?

For not resisting with courage. If any bishop should ever read this, let me remind you that the Holy Spirit in the book of the Apocalypse places through the Apostle John cowards in the same lake of fire as murderers:

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”—Apocalypse 21:8 ESV

I for one: resist. I renounce the open apostasy in the Vatican in the name of Jesus Christ and I beg the wrath of St. Peter and St. Paul to stop this blasphemy of the Eternal City and this mockery of Jesus Christ’s own apostolic succession. I will reveal my name when I am ready to lose my faculties as a priest in current good standing and go into exile, but for now, I resist in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Open Apostasy In The Vatican

  1. Mary Salmond says:

    Thank you, Fr Jerome! I’ve been waiting for more priests to speak out about these 3 matters you defined. It is a must! Continue to speak for those of us who are not heard or have no influence! We pray for your strength. The spiral downward goes faster at the bottom!

  2. Mary Salmond says:

    Cardinal John Henry Newman: And a pastor who fails to instruct a misguided conscience seems to have forgotten that appeals to false conscience will offer no protection in the final judgment!

  3. Toad says:

    ”Yes, there will always be liberals who hate Christ, ”
    I doubt if there’s one ‘liberal’ in the world who hates Christ. Some might not be over-fond of Christian churches and their antics.
    But that’s a different thing.

    ‘I will reveal my name when I am ready to lose my faculties as a priest in current good standing and go into exile,”
    Coward.
    What possible reason do you have for waiting?

    [Moderator – Two of your comments rolled into one. Avoids clogging up our ‘recent comments’ bar with toads.]

  4. David O'Neill says:

    Sadly Father few of the Church leaders will follow your example. But may I say that you are right to work from inside the Church as no change will ever be made from outside.

  5. JabbaPapa says:

    No, the four Cardinals of the Dubia are nothing like St. Athanasius or St. Maximus the Confessor or St. Nicholas or St. John Chrysostom

    hmmmm, I think there’s actually a subtle category error here.

    One part of the particular Ministry of a Cardinal, even a duty to some extent, is to express doubts about whichever present state of Church teaching that they may be uncomfortable with or unhappy about, but not only is it an absolute requirement that this be done in Communion of Faith with the Roman Pontiff, so that the right of Cardinals to express a dissenting view, for good or ill, but this right of Cardinals to express such views is never of any direct consequence but it is always subjected to the approbation or not of the Roman Pontiff, so that is qualitatively different to those occasions when another Bishop or a theologian might be able to act — with perhaps lesser right, but certainly with greater freedom.

    Cardinal Burke simply is not in a position whereby he could be a modern Athanasius, and it is uncharitable to blame him for this, particularly when one has nothing of an Athanasius oneself !!!

    The false prophet on the Chair of Peter ……. I for one: resist. I renounce the open apostasy in the Vatican

    This OTOH is just a straightforward declaration of schism, constituting pretty much directly the very apostasy that this clergyman pretends to denounce.

    The Pope can be blamed, perhaps, for being overly lax towards the Modernist heretics gathering like flies around the Church, such as the utterly ghastly antics recently of the Bishop of Braga in Portugal — but this does NOT constitute “heresy”, and at very worst mere incompetence or weakness.

    As for : when I am ready to lose my faculties as a priest in current good standing

    Well father, even anonymous Acts of public Schism are subjected to an instant excommunication latae sententiae by one’s own actions, so basically you have already lost them, though you pretend and convince yourself otherwise — which BTW illustrates the degree to which you yourself are completely lacking in the very courage that you somehow expect should be provided by others.

    Which is rank hypocrisy and double standards, really …

    PS Father, your “definitions” of “heresy” and “apostasy” are grievously misleading and false, because they are objectively wrong, and by proclaiming them, you are teaching direct Error to the Faithful.

  6. JabbaPapa says:

    some grammar mishaps sorry, but the sense is there …

  7. kathleen says:

    @ Jabba

    Interesting critique, but…

    even anonymous Acts of public Schism are subjected to an instant excommunication latae sententiae by one’s own actions

    Are you sure of that, Jabba? Do you know where it says that in Canon Law? It makes me think there must be a great many “excommunicated” Catholics walking around under this dreadful Pontificate in the Church today, totally oblivious of this fact! And not because they have come out publicly to say it (albeit, anonymously) like Fr Jerome, but because they cannot understand how a true pope could behave in the way Francis does.

    “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

    Catholics have a duty and a right to protest the mounting un-Catholic words and actions of Pope Francis (and those of the liberal cardinals and bishops he has promoted after sacking the orthodox ones). It should not be prompted by a personal dislike of the man of course, but by a greater love and loyalty to Our Blessed Lord and His Holy Church. The Vatican is being destroyed from within by the progressives and lavender mafia so highly favoured by Francis.

    Even so, I do agree that we cannot say Francis is a “false prophet on the Chair of Peter” however much he resembles a Unitarian Universalist rather than a “Catholic”. If the Church tells us Francis is the Pope (and this despite the revelations of the Gallen mafia’s illegitimate manipulation of the Conclave that elected him) then we have no alternative but to accept it.

    And onto another point Fr Jerome makes…
    Was Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation “clearly-forced”? Perhaps it was… but unlike the evidence we have of the dirty dealings to elect Francis to the Chair of Peter, we have no hard evidence that Benedict’s resignation was forced, only plenty of very suspicious-looking indications and pointers. Yet Benedict himself has never admitted to having been blackmailed into resigning the Papacy.

  8. mmvc says:

    ” …they cannot understand how a true pope could behave in the way Francis does.”

    Yes, Kathleen. Those faithful priests, those tireless ministers, many of whom are banished to far flung backwaters because of their adherence to traditional teaching and liturgy, are probably among the most heart-broken over this ‘pontificate’. To consider them (or the many lay Catholics who are of one mind with them) ‘schismatic’ and ‘excommunicated’ is adding insult to injury. May they be abundantly blessed as they suffer and share in the Passion of the Mystical Body of Christ!

  9. JabbaPapa says:

    kathleen —

    Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

    §2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

    hmmmm OK seems I was slightly wrong about the clerical state side of things, but certainly a declared, though anonymous, schismatic cleric cannot be “in good standing”.

    Remember — schism is not defined according to the objectively false presentation of this priest, but —

    Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

  10. Toad says:

    ”… unlike the evidence we have of the dirty dealings to elect Francis to the Chair of Peter,’
    When I was being indoctrinated into Catholicism (e,g. Limbo) I was also informed that The Holy Ghost personally intervened to ensure the right man always got the Pontiff’s job.
    Also wrong – it seems.
    How much more?

  11. JabbaPapa says:

    Toad, extraordinarily bad catechetical instruction was the norm during your youth.

    Things have started to improve here and there since about the 1990s, but even today it still remains quite dismal in some territories or dioceses.

    And no, it’s Not true “that The Holy Ghost personally intervened to ensure the right man always got the Pontiff’s job“.

    The Holy Spirit does intervene at the Conclave, but whether the Cardinals heed the Spirit or not in any particular Election is not so clear cut.

  12. Toad says:

    Well explained, Jabba.
    Eight-and-a-half out of ten.
    As you say, too much valuable school time was wasted on dubious and faulty religious instruction.
    The rest I wasted for myself.

  13. mmvc says:

    When asked whether the Holy Spirit is responsible for the election of a pope, Benedict XVI said:

    “I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. . . . I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”

    He continued:

    “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

  14. geoffkiernan says:

    Its to easy to blame the Holy Spirit for this one. Sometimes we get the Pope we deserve

  15. johnhenrycn says:

    Speaking counterintuitively as one who does not admire him, Pope Francis may be the pope we needed at this moment in ecclesial history. Lancing a boil full of pus is a more straightforward (still painful) undertaking when it’s a large one – as the upper echelon at the Vatican now appears to be.

  16. Mary Salmond says:

    Yes, all in God’s good time!

  17. johnhenrycn says:

    His Excellency, Bishop Athanasius Schneider at work, circa 2020 A.D.

    Sorry.

  18. Mary Salmond says:

    I’d vote for him. Libtards in the Church would go bananas!

  19. Toad says:

    ‘Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”
    Smoke and mirrors. …Meaning that we know absolutely nothing.
    Do we even believe the second sentence, anyway?

  20. kathleen says:

    JH

    I chose not to watch your video: I’m far too squeamish 🤢 ! But naturally we get the picture… and a very hopeful one it is too!

    Bishop Schneider would make a wonderful pope, and he’d soon get rid of all the horrible “pus” infecting the Body of Christ, no doubt about that… but he’d need to become a cardinal first. And what possible hope would this holy, traditional, humble (yet courageously outspoken) bishop have of being nominated to the Cardinalate under Pope Francis would you say? Sigh 😔.

  21. johnhenrycn says:

    JabbaPapa can (natch) correct me if I’m wrong, Ms K, but I thought any baptised/confirmed Catholic male (a natural born one, that is) is qualified to be elected pope.

  22. kathleen says:

    @Jabba

    schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff

    Are you saying Father Jerome (or the priest hiding behind this pseudonym) is not “submitting” to Pope Francis?
    Or that he is not a priest in “good standing” because he has used the words “false prophet” to describe Pope Francis?

    Fr Jerome surely values the Papacy very highly. If he did not, he would hardly demonstrate such passion in his denouncement of a pope who allows such open apostasy to threaten the Church in this way! For you cannot say Francis is blind to what is going on.

    Fr Jerome appears not to have come out openly to call Francis a “false prophet” and to denounce his shenanigans (as you have noted), so he has not fomented any public schism. His righteous anger is against the assault on the Church’s faithful ministers (and laity), Her teachings and traditions at the hand of Francis and his liberals*. Perhaps this love for the Church makes Fr Jerome a priest in very “good standing” with Our Blessed Lord?

    * perhaps even the word “liberal” to define some of those treacherous bishops and cardinals Francis adulates is too kind!

    However, I do think Fr Jerome’s accusations against faithful clergy who (as mmvc has said above) are currently sharing in the “Passion of the Mystical Body of Christ” is unecessarily harsh. They have the salvation of the souls of their flocks to think about.. Many Catholics are speaking out, and the four cardinals who presented Francis with the dubia did the right thing. It is not their fault that Francis ignored them. Just to rage at the Pope like the good fiery saints of old would be most unlikely to turn things around. (Where now is the promised “correction“ though?)

  23. kathleen says:

    Looks like you could be right, JH !

    “Where have all the [good popes] gone, long time passing…”

    They will return when (pace Geoff ^) we, the faithful, are more deserving.

  24. JabbaPapa says:

    It’s generally true that any baptised/confirmed Catholic male (a natural born one, that is) is qualified to be elected pope, but I think that those suffering under some penalty of anathema or under formal condemnation for Heresy or Apostasy are ineligible (but those condemned for simple Schism are not).

  25. JabbaPapa says:

    kathleen, I’m saying that he has publicly declared himself to be in the condition of Schism by declaring a formal renunciation against the Pope and “the Vatican” even so far as to publish accusations of “apostasy” against the Roman Pontiff (perfectly unjustly and untruthfully BTW, to a degree even of mendacity and clear disobedience of the Commandment – thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour ; Pope Francis has NOT professed any “total repudiation of the Christian faith” …).

    His actions very clearly constitute both parts simultaneously of the canonical definition of “schism” — refusal of Communion with the Pontiff, and refusal of Communion with “members of the Church subject to him“. It would be uncharitable on my part not to warn readers in here of this man’s willful acts of schism.

    Fr Jerome appears not to have come out openly to call Francis a “false prophet” and to denounce his shenanigans (as you have noted), so he has not fomented any public schism

    Not only irrelevant, but also untrue — schism is defined by the refusal of communion, not by actions to try and convert others to your schismaticism ; besides, quite clearly he hasfomented … public schism” via the publication of this anti-Vatican and anti-Francis pamphlet.

    Perhaps this love for the Church makes Fr Jerome a priest in very “good standing” with Our Blessed Lord?

    Only the Lord Himself is in a position to decide so, whereas we in the Church Militant must remain bound within our fidelity to our Bishops and to our Pontiff and so are in no position to judge the condition nor state of his immortal soul.

  26. Toad says:

    “Where have all the [good popes] gone, long time passing…”
    Yer, right.,,.popes ain’t wot they used to be. Never were, actually.
    It’s like Spike Milligan used to say, ”What happened to the crispy bacon we used to get before the war?”

  27. kathleen says:

    Jabba,

    I apologise for my rather messy and badly laid out comment last night. It was very late and I was tired. To continue…

    No Catholic layman, not even the ordinary clergy, has the authority to call Pope Francis the “False Prophet” – which is probably the equivalent of an Apostate! Father Jerome was wrong to state that. (I have said words to this effect above,) I believe that only Cardinals and bishops (successors of the Apostles) have the authority to pronounce on such an incredulous thing. This is unlikely to happen during Francis’ lifetime, but many scholars in the Church are contemplating the likelihood that a future pope – a true defender of the Sacred Deposit of Faith – in gathering the evidence together of all the un-Catholic deeds of Francis, may well have to make such a declaration.

    Pope Francis is doing a lot of damage to the Catholic Church and it surprises me that someone as well-read on Catholicism and as highly intelligent as yourself refuses to admit this. True, you have called Francis a “blabber-mouth” and shown shock at some of the scandalous things happening in the Vatican today (e.g., that prestigious award given to the notorious abortion-provider recently) but you fail to follow the offence to Christ’s Body to its original source and promulgators! Why?
    I believe you are a solid, practicing Catholic; I know you have a great love for the Blessed Virgin Mary; you are always satisfactorily clarifying Church teachings for others’ questions on many tricky topics, etc., and so….

    Does your loyalty to the Catholic Church not extend to defending the purity of Her teachings when the one who is compromising them happens to be the Pope himself? Or one of the Pope’s favoured liberal bishops?

    (Francis either corners the orthodox ones, like Card. Sarah, so that they are rendered helpless to do anything effective to defend the truth… or he packs them off to remote corners of the globe, or reduces their influence by putting them in unimportant positions. He truly is a ‘Dictator Pope’, as Marcantonio Colonna disclosed.)

    There is an Apostasy in the Church right now, and it’s starting at the top. Infiltrated into the Church (Vatican) there are enemies of the Mystical Body of Christ. They are attempting to turn Her Magisterial teachings into a pro-sodomite, ecumaniac, Universalist mess that IS NOT CATHOLIC.

    That, really, is what this whole question is all about. Not whether the ‘Father Jeromes’ of the Church* are potentially “in schism” or not, but whether we Catholics are going to sit in our laurels and allow these Mason, Modernist, sodomite infiltrators to destroy the faith (and thus the souls) of so many in the Church.

    * IOW, all those orthodox Catholics who passionately love their Catholic Faith and in their desperation and feelings of impotence, may sometimes go over the top in their incriminations

  28. Mary Salmond says:

    In other words, “thinking, conscious “Catholics can still think but don’t slander the pope! Or anybody, for that matter. However, thinking those names in your heart, is just like “when a man has lust in his heart, he already has sinned.”

  29. JabbaPapa says:

    In other words, “thinking, conscious “Catholics can still think but don’t slander the pope! Or anybody, for that matter.

    Well yes Mary, but only up to a point !!

    First, denouncing uncatholic ideas or proposals (like this latest absolute nonsense from that Modernist German Cardinal Marx about how for “blessing” gay “unions” the decision should be taken by “the pastor on the ground, and the individual under pastoral care” about which (according to him) “we have no sets of rules” (!!!!) or other such similarly nonsense anticatholic and unchristian proposals from out of Germany, does not constitute the slandering of individuals.

    So there’s no problem at all in denouncing rubbish ideas, even if it might happen to be a Pope who has suggested them.

    But — prudence still dictates that you can’t call even the grotesquely Modernist Marx a “heretic” or an “apostate” because these are very specific crimes against the Church that even one such as Marx, so far, has not made himself specifically guilty of.

    And as for whatever other penalties he could perhaps justly be described as being deserving of, these are of the sole Authorities of the College of Cardinals, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and more especially of the Roman Pontiff — but bearing in mind always that one undeniable particular of the Cardinalate Office and Ministry is the right to make proposals for reforms to both the Pontiff and the Church with no necessary requirement that these proposals must be generally acceptable to the Faithful.

    So that one always has to be very careful in these matters so as, among other things, to avoid injustice.

    Play the ball, not the man — except if and when it should become painfully obvious within the provisions of the Dogma and/or of the Canon Law that the man has willfully and deliberately strayed outside the bounds of the Catholicity itself.

    And that can serve as a reply to kathleen as well … 🙂

  30. Irrespective of the merits of much contained here in, the suggestion that Pope Benedict’s resignation was secured by duress is risible.

  31. kathleen says:

    Thank you, Jabba. Basically, with some reservations, I agree with all you have said in your response to Mary, but does your advice not extend to your own recriminations against those good men at The Remnant, Rorate Caeli, and some other conservative blogs?

    Play the ball, not the man – except if and when it should become painfully obvious within the provisions of the Dogma and/or of the Canon Law that the man has willfully and deliberately strayed outside the bounds of the Catholicity itself.

    Remember that this “ball” does not come from nowhere to bash the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Faith, but from a very sick mindset (Modernism) dancing to the tune of the world, and not to God. It is always a man, or men, who put it into play.

  32. JabbaPapa says:

    Those who foment schism, kathleen, are schismatics however you look at it.

    Have you ever seen such people as Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, Father Z claiming to be some silly “remnant” of the “real church” or suggesting that some Catholics aren’t really Catholic ?

    The exclusivist “us and them” attitudes of such as those at the so-called “remnant” were condemned 600 years ago by Pope Martin V, who explicitly stated that not even formally condemned heretics should be excluded from society nor even from church Congregations at Holy Mass. Was Pope Martin “dancing to the Modernist tune of the world” back in the early 1400s ?

  33. mmvc says:

    Bishop Schneider:

    “It is not only a risk of schism, but a certain kind of schism already exists in the Church. In Greek, schism means to separate oneself from the totality of the body. Christ is the totality of the body of Divine Truth, and unity in His supernatural body is also visible. But we are witnessing today a strange form of schism. Externally, numerous ecclesiastics safeguard formal unity with the pope, at times, for the good of their own career or or of a kind of papolatry. And at the same time they have broken their ties with Christ, the Truth, and with Christ, the true head of the Church. On the other hand there are ecclesiastics who are denounced as schismatics despite the fact they live in canonical peace with the pope and remain faithful to Christ, the Truth, by assiduously promoting His Gospel of Truth.

    It is evident that those who are internally the true schismatics, in relation to Christ, make use of calumnies for the sole purpose of silencing the voice of Truth by absurdly projecting their own state of internal schism on those ecclesiastics, who, regardless of praise or rebuke, defend the divine truths. In fact, as Sacred Scripture says, the word of Divine Truth is not bound. Even if a number of high-ranking officials in the Church today temporarily obscure the truth of the doctrine of marriage and its perennial discipline, this doctrine and discipline will always remain unchangeable in the Church, because the Church is not human foundation, but a divine one.”

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-we-are-witnessing-today-a-strange-form-of-schism-within-th

  34. Toad says:

    ”Pope Martin V, who explicitly stated that not even formally condemned heretics should be excluded from society nor even from church Congregations at Holy Mass..”
    Reasonably safe to assume he wasn’t in favour of roasting them alive, then. Clearly a man ahead of his time.
    What is a ‘Heretic’,’ anyway? Someone who sincerely holds different opinions to those who accusing him (or her) of being one…. I suggest.
    …Nothing else.

  35. Mary Salmond says:

    mmvc last statement seems to have touched on the subject about internal and external schism. And suggests ” the devil is in the details”. We can never know what’s in a person’s heart (their intent) unless they tell us. There is no empirical evidence of their intent. Only God can judge that.

  36. kathleen says:

    Jabba, you’re twisting things now with your:

    “not even formally condemned heretics should be excluded from society nor even from church Congregations at Holy Mass”

    Pope Martin V spoke a timeless Catholic Teaching that has nothing to do with this debate. Neither I nor anyone here suggested such a thing about “heretics”. In fact those Catholics who are daily compromising Doctrine and dogma on Faith and Morals (and are thus a subtle form of heretic and schismatic) should attend Holy Mass! This may turn their rebellious hearts to ‘humble and contrite hearts’ and the subsequent outpouring of God’s grace to recant their heresies. There is a ‘Damascus’ moment in the Merciful Heart of Jesus awaiting every sinner.

    In mmvc’s link we see how Bishop Schneider brilliantly describes who are the true schismatics In the Church today!
    No Jabba, they are not the millions of ‘Father Jeromes’ and Remnant-type groups in the Church, who are suffering a very real Passion of their own as they witness the slow undermining of the Faith! No, not them (or us at CP&S), but that whole lot of Modernist rogues infiltrated into the upper echelons of the Holy Bride of Christ. They are the real heretics and schismatics. Why do you insist on making excuses for them?

    (Thank you mmvc 🙂.)

  37. Toad says:

    ”We can never know what’s in a person’s heart (their intent) unless they tell us. ”
    When somebody tells me what’s ”…’in his heart;” is when I trust that person least.

    ”There is no empirical evidence of their intent. ”
    Intent cannot be measured empirically, or in any other way.
    We must simply take it or leave it.

  38. JabbaPapa says:

    mmvc :

    Bishop Schneider: et caetera.

    Please let me repeat myself —

    Those who foment schism, kathleen, are schismatics however you look at it.

  39. Toad says:

    Ahem.
    We (whoever that might be) know who’s a heretic – and you don’t.
    … because you already are one.

    Makes sense to me. So, it must be correct.

  40. JabbaPapa says:

    kathleen, I make no “excuses” whatsoever for schismatics nor formal heretics nor apostates — indeed you make several points that I could have written myself.

    But :

    Pope Martin V spoke a timeless Catholic Teaching that has nothing to do with this debate

    I think you’re mistaken about this point. Instead of being “timeless”, the Faithful were once actually encouraged to engage in the ritual public humiliation of the impious. Some factions of Catholics, inspired mostly by the ultra-conservatism of the late French 19th Century (in réaction to the despicable French Revolution) seek to continue this “us and them” notion that is quite simply antithetical to the Catholicity as such.

    In mmvc’s link we see how Bishop Schneider brilliantly describes who are the true schismatics In the Church today!

    I cannot recall ever having “defended” such men.

    You make far too much of my deep dislike of the whole so-called “remnant” ideology — my dislike of sectarians is not biased against “rad-trads” neither especially nor in particular. But the grotesque Errors of the Lefty so-called “progressive” sectarians is far easier to spot and warn oneself against than any superficially “traditional” theologies that seek rather to dismantle the Catholicity of the Faith qua καθολικός, and besides, I have exactly NO desire to help foment any manner of sectarianism nor parochialism myself.

  41. kathleen says:

    OK, Jabba: in this last comment you make your views clearer.

    It is true that, despite the Church’s 2000 year old teaching of forgiveness for repentant sinners, the Sacrament of Confession, penance, and a return to a life of adherence to the Faith (which is what I thought you were referring to by your mention of the statement of Pope Martin V) the treatment meted out to obstinate heretics was indeed harsh in many places.

    We have gone to the other end of the spectrum now, and heretics in the Church are having a heyday! In today’s pertinent post for our discussion here, Steve Skojec has hit the nail on the head in describing how heretics in the Church (meaning especially those in the public eye, including clerics) are receiving no correction from the relevant authorities in the Church, and instead threats and retribution are meted out to those faithful Catholics who have called them out on their errors!
    It is really crazy, and very tragic, what is happening in the Church today.

    Those who foment schism, kathleen, are schismatics however you look at it.

    I know.
    And those true “schismatics” are the apostates in the Church who are going all out to rewrite the Catholic Faith. Really, Bishop Schneider above (^) puts it so succinctly, I don’t need to elaborate.

  42. Toad says:

    ”..the treatment meted out to obstinate heretics was indeed harsh in many places.’
    Would you regard yourself as ‘obstinate,’ in your defence of your beliefs, Kathleen? Or merely ‘steadfast’?

    [Moderator – the rest of this comment is more of the same broken record mutterings and has been deleted.]

  43. kathleen says:

    Toad,

    Hmmm, I see the Moderator left your question to me “unmoderated”.

    How do I regard myself?
    Well, I don’t; I let others like you do the “regarding” 🤔 for me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s