I take Bishop Schneider’s position on papal heresy. Ever since Holy Guardian Angels 2023 with the dubia response, I simply hold fast to the Trent Catechism as my teaching document and I’ll give a Martyr’s or Confessor’s witness to it. ( My FSSP pastor approves, saying we stick to what we know. ) While listening for the voice of Christ in our pastors. I like your use of the image of the three medical professionals and the third says “ I don’t know. “ I’m not going to declare whether or not the Holy Father is or is not a heretic. I’ll leave that for a future Pope to determine. I simply hold fast to the Faith, go to the TLM and do my duties of state.
Just about every sitting bishop in the world including the head of this dicastery has 'publicly defected from the Catholic faith'.
Absolutely all of them worship at the altar of so called 'religious liberty' which is inimical to the very foundation of the Catholic religion. They are all schismatics and their authority to declare anyone else schismatic is therefore very doubtful if not nonexistent. We need to pray and sacrifice that Our Lord rectify this situation forthwith.
Pope Paul VI said that VII was a pastoral council. Any changes to Dogma that came out of it are bukkake. Francils is an antipope and manifest heretic. One word: Pachamama.
Ann Barnhardt put it well: "How can I get into this action? I want to be formally declared 'in schism" from Antipope Bergoglio and the Antichurch too."
unfortunately, this is a dodge, because all the declarations of the Conciliar pontiffs underscore their affirmation of it as a real & authoritative Council, and if they are true popes, then it is their interpretations that are the ones that have to be believed. Abp Lefebvre’s “The Conciliar decrees are just like a long sermon” is simply untenable. Look at every document stemming from V2 or appealing to it as the very reason for the action the putative popes take.
Bp Sanborn’s Livestream from Most Holy Trinity seminary with Fr Esposito today answers this “pastoral Council, so it’s not really magisterial” excuse has no weight. “Let’s put it to rest now.”
You must have missed the fact that VII was "Pastoral" and not Dogmatic; as affirmed by John XXIII at the opening and Paul VI at the closing. VII does not contain a single dogmatic canon, and yet, as Benedict XVI pointed out, VII is treated as though it were a super-dogma.
I don't care how many contradictions to the body of received dogmatic canons are there or promoted by even a pope; they are merely errors.
“Pastoral” never means “optional” anywhere in Church history. It never meant “we’re not meaning to teach anything” in the Conciliar documents, nor in all the subsequent documents which say “in order to fulfill the demands of the Council”. It refers to the chosen method of communication of teaching: not the traditional means of brief dogmatic statements with accompanying anathemas, but a form which gives both the teacher and the taught latitude in interpretation. It is evasion and equivocation replacing the simple and normative method by which the Church had spoken for over a millennium. The dodge of “ressourcement”, returning to the Church Fathers, was to move to elaborate discursive rhetorical modes, by which Modernist content could replace the actual doctrine of the Church. No shepherd consecrated or ordained ever told his flock “I’m just going to say these things but I leave them up to you whatever you want to do with them. You don’t have to heed me. Just pick and choose.”
This “we can ignore it because it was pastoral” is a fiction invented by Abp Lefebvre, because he could never pull the trigger on declaring that the Council, which he had tried to salvage with the work of the Cœtus , was in reality no Council . But a real Church Council which somehow is not to be adhered to merely because its pastoral character was emphasized is just as much a modernist conception as “partial communion”. If it is a true Council, then its content is divinely assured, just as the statements of a real pope are divinely assured. To play this “well, he’s a pope, but I can ignore what he says, because I’ve checked the content” and “I don’t have to affirm all that the Council says but can be selective” is simply poison. Either it IS, or it ISN’T: either those who say it is part of the Magisterium and must be held to ARE popes, or they AREN’T. To do anything else is to play semantic games.
For intent, we can only examine the record. The title alone is insufficient to make is so, as the intent of John XXIII was clear, and confirmed by Paul VI. Every other Council has "Dogmatic Canons", [with the first 7 ecumenical councils] universally accepted as infallible by the Holy Ghost, and the intent to refute error is positively proclaimed by each. Clearly it would seem that progressivists and sedevacantists agree that the "Dogmatic Constitutions" of VII are constitutive of a post-conciliar new church that is a replacement in place for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The popes and the popes only are the interpreters of Councils. The Conciliar “popes” never draw examples or statements from Trent, but each & all always cite Vatican II, and only at a pinch Vatican I. It is dishonesty in extremis, and sadly instilled by Michael Davies & the Remnant & SSPX to say “Well, Vatican II was just a long sermon”. They weren’t of course just going to come out & say “We’re chucking Trent” in so many words, but their entire rhetorical form by which they frame teaching demonstrates the abandonment of the entire mode of thinking the Church uses. It is just as much cafeteria Catholicism to utter this non-Catholic nonsense of “Well, Vatican II is a valid Council but taught nothing.” It does teach: and it’s teaching is wholly heretical. You can choose to deny the teaching and the Council with it, and its popes, but it is intellectual fraud to admit validity to V2 and the popes but then just say “Well, none of it is authoritative because they didn’t frame anathemas.”
To revise a comment from a famous early Sede, “I’m not saying I do not submit to the Pontiff, I am saying there is no Pontiff to submit to.”
This is the dividing point between those who reject the New Religion in its entirety, and those who try to pick & choose what bits of the Novus Ordo religion they accept…like all the Ecumenical Shamans who apostasized from the Church the moment they publically invited heretics & representatives of different religion to prayer sessions together.
Either Bergoglio is pope, or he’s not. “Nuanced” is, sad to say, is a weasel word which has always kept the Remainers (by analogy with Brexit) in communion with the apostates. If you’re in communion with apostates, the scripture and the church law and the saints and popes all have advice for you.
"My wife compares the whole thing to people who, seeing all the deaths and injuries obviously owing to the mRNA shot, have to explain that it’s anything BUT the shot. “Willful blindness” is her term: “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. "
That reminds me of the last four years of my research in to what is called the "COVID-19 pandemic." I did quite a bit of reading and writing on that subject in various postings and comments of mind on several sites on the web.
I remember Archbishop Vigano, whom I had never heard of, gave some important commentary on that subject in some of his most forthright commentary. He spoke against taking the vaccine and called it "a gene serum." That is an apt description as recent information shows the vaccine permanently changes the genetic makeup of the recipient. ( I guess I won't get too far off topic but even the adeno viral vector vaccines, AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, were extremely injurious in various ways to individuals who chose to take those kinds of COVID-19 vaccines. So be careful about thinking it is only mRNA types of vaccines.)
Here is Bishop Sanborn's "emergency video" of today)
His excellency Bishop Sanborn regards the excommunication of Archbishop Vigano a fortuitous event as it is an "act of war" or as I would say "a line in the sand" and offers a good opportunity to decide what side you are on.
________________
Luke 11:23 Douay-Rheims bible
He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.
"To revise a comment from a famous early Sede, “I’m not saying I do not submit to the Pontiff, I am saying there is no Pontiff to submit to.”"
Yes, that "famous early Sede" is none other than Archbishop Levebvre. I remember Sede Bishop Donald Sanborn telling about hearing that spoken in person by the Archbishop's French language in a meeting in the USA, somewhere in New York, with several early sede priests. To hear that quote in French is amusing as it is full of pops and P sounds. Bishop Sanborn says it in one of the apologetics episodes now on YouTube.
Bishop Sanborn teaches seminary students from all over the world now in the Most Holy Trinity seminary in Reading Pennsylvania and he is able to teach in Latin, Italian, Spanish, and I think German, and maybe a little in Greek languages. Amazing!
(A bit off topic but Bishop Sanborn's early apologetics audio series have rencently become available for free on the True Restoration YouTube channel. It is outstanding.
Thanks for the correction on the quote: I’d seen it attributed to Fr Chicoine, “You don’t have a mass to go to.”
My wife & I, who both converted before we were 30, long before we met, gained a great deal of peace when we no longer did the tapdancing through what Abp Viganò calls the “canonical abstractions” (of trying to maintain JMB is pope & V2 an actual Church Council). We subscribe to True Restoration, and it’s worth the annual cost.
My wife compares the whole thing to people who, seeing all the deaths and injuries obviously owing to the mRNA shot, have to explain that it’s anything BUT the shot. “Willful blindness” is her term: “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”.
It is a slippery slope, national/local sede churches. No different similar to the schismatic orthodox, which is rooted in the rulers of russia being from the Synagogue that definitely aims to destroy the Papacy, ei Alta Vendetta. It is my concern, Bannon and Trump favor/connection of Archbishop Vigano, Vigano calling Moscow the Third Rome. Yet, if the argue follows Francis not pope because of V2 errors, Archbisop Vigano was ordained by a V2 Council father Bishop Carlo Allorio. Im suprised that he did not stand with any other Bishop like Bishop Schneider or Bishop Vitus RIP that would show unity or prudence like with the stance of the SSPX and its affiliates. It seems red flags with all this coming together with the trials of Trump, Bannon and so on. That also the revelation of Mccarricks scandals came prior and during the same time during the lockdowns. Media frenzy which would've been cared for among the church authorities, but seems like the media press is all over this, which we should know now after the lockdowns who's really pushing the narrative and media. But the Synagogue and enemies of the Church and truth.All based on the algorithms should say a lot. If it was going to be throttled down of reach and so on like the truth was during the lockdowns. It is something to think about. God bless Archbishop Vigano and I pray for him. People are getting behind hiim, like the savior complex I see even traditional catholics falling behind Zionist supported Trump and Bannon.
I take Bishop Schneider’s position on papal heresy. Ever since Holy Guardian Angels 2023 with the dubia response, I simply hold fast to the Trent Catechism as my teaching document and I’ll give a Martyr’s or Confessor’s witness to it. ( My FSSP pastor approves, saying we stick to what we know. ) While listening for the voice of Christ in our pastors. I like your use of the image of the three medical professionals and the third says “ I don’t know. “ I’m not going to declare whether or not the Holy Father is or is not a heretic. I’ll leave that for a future Pope to determine. I simply hold fast to the Faith, go to the TLM and do my duties of state.
Just about every sitting bishop in the world including the head of this dicastery has 'publicly defected from the Catholic faith'.
Absolutely all of them worship at the altar of so called 'religious liberty' which is inimical to the very foundation of the Catholic religion. They are all schismatics and their authority to declare anyone else schismatic is therefore very doubtful if not nonexistent. We need to pray and sacrifice that Our Lord rectify this situation forthwith.
Pope Paul VI said that VII was a pastoral council. Any changes to Dogma that came out of it are bukkake. Francils is an antipope and manifest heretic. One word: Pachamama.
Ann Barnhardt put it well: "How can I get into this action? I want to be formally declared 'in schism" from Antipope Bergoglio and the Antichurch too."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DiYTHDDYEo
unfortunately, this is a dodge, because all the declarations of the Conciliar pontiffs underscore their affirmation of it as a real & authoritative Council, and if they are true popes, then it is their interpretations that are the ones that have to be believed. Abp Lefebvre’s “The Conciliar decrees are just like a long sermon” is simply untenable. Look at every document stemming from V2 or appealing to it as the very reason for the action the putative popes take.
Bp Sanborn’s Livestream from Most Holy Trinity seminary with Fr Esposito today answers this “pastoral Council, so it’s not really magisterial” excuse has no weight. “Let’s put it to rest now.”
You must have missed the fact that VII was "Pastoral" and not Dogmatic; as affirmed by John XXIII at the opening and Paul VI at the closing. VII does not contain a single dogmatic canon, and yet, as Benedict XVI pointed out, VII is treated as though it were a super-dogma.
I don't care how many contradictions to the body of received dogmatic canons are there or promoted by even a pope; they are merely errors.
“Pastoral” never means “optional” anywhere in Church history. It never meant “we’re not meaning to teach anything” in the Conciliar documents, nor in all the subsequent documents which say “in order to fulfill the demands of the Council”. It refers to the chosen method of communication of teaching: not the traditional means of brief dogmatic statements with accompanying anathemas, but a form which gives both the teacher and the taught latitude in interpretation. It is evasion and equivocation replacing the simple and normative method by which the Church had spoken for over a millennium. The dodge of “ressourcement”, returning to the Church Fathers, was to move to elaborate discursive rhetorical modes, by which Modernist content could replace the actual doctrine of the Church. No shepherd consecrated or ordained ever told his flock “I’m just going to say these things but I leave them up to you whatever you want to do with them. You don’t have to heed me. Just pick and choose.”
This “we can ignore it because it was pastoral” is a fiction invented by Abp Lefebvre, because he could never pull the trigger on declaring that the Council, which he had tried to salvage with the work of the Cœtus , was in reality no Council . But a real Church Council which somehow is not to be adhered to merely because its pastoral character was emphasized is just as much a modernist conception as “partial communion”. If it is a true Council, then its content is divinely assured, just as the statements of a real pope are divinely assured. To play this “well, he’s a pope, but I can ignore what he says, because I’ve checked the content” and “I don’t have to affirm all that the Council says but can be selective” is simply poison. Either it IS, or it ISN’T: either those who say it is part of the Magisterium and must be held to ARE popes, or they AREN’T. To do anything else is to play semantic games.
Nothing in VII is divinely assured; only the dogmatic canons of a council are. There are none at all in VII. 'Nuff said.
They’re called “DOGMATIC CONSTITUTIONS”, but are not intended to be dogmatic?
For intent, we can only examine the record. The title alone is insufficient to make is so, as the intent of John XXIII was clear, and confirmed by Paul VI. Every other Council has "Dogmatic Canons", [with the first 7 ecumenical councils] universally accepted as infallible by the Holy Ghost, and the intent to refute error is positively proclaimed by each. Clearly it would seem that progressivists and sedevacantists agree that the "Dogmatic Constitutions" of VII are constitutive of a post-conciliar new church that is a replacement in place for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Gumball machine theology.
Vatican II was a "pastoral Council." It did not change Trent. Before I debate with you any more, please read the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
The popes and the popes only are the interpreters of Councils. The Conciliar “popes” never draw examples or statements from Trent, but each & all always cite Vatican II, and only at a pinch Vatican I. It is dishonesty in extremis, and sadly instilled by Michael Davies & the Remnant & SSPX to say “Well, Vatican II was just a long sermon”. They weren’t of course just going to come out & say “We’re chucking Trent” in so many words, but their entire rhetorical form by which they frame teaching demonstrates the abandonment of the entire mode of thinking the Church uses. It is just as much cafeteria Catholicism to utter this non-Catholic nonsense of “Well, Vatican II is a valid Council but taught nothing.” It does teach: and it’s teaching is wholly heretical. You can choose to deny the teaching and the Council with it, and its popes, but it is intellectual fraud to admit validity to V2 and the popes but then just say “Well, none of it is authoritative because they didn’t frame anathemas.”
To revise a comment from a famous early Sede, “I’m not saying I do not submit to the Pontiff, I am saying there is no Pontiff to submit to.”
This is the dividing point between those who reject the New Religion in its entirety, and those who try to pick & choose what bits of the Novus Ordo religion they accept…like all the Ecumenical Shamans who apostasized from the Church the moment they publically invited heretics & representatives of different religion to prayer sessions together.
Either Bergoglio is pope, or he’s not. “Nuanced” is, sad to say, is a weasel word which has always kept the Remainers (by analogy with Brexit) in communion with the apostates. If you’re in communion with apostates, the scripture and the church law and the saints and popes all have advice for you.
"My wife compares the whole thing to people who, seeing all the deaths and injuries obviously owing to the mRNA shot, have to explain that it’s anything BUT the shot. “Willful blindness” is her term: “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. "
That reminds me of the last four years of my research in to what is called the "COVID-19 pandemic." I did quite a bit of reading and writing on that subject in various postings and comments of mind on several sites on the web.
I remember Archbishop Vigano, whom I had never heard of, gave some important commentary on that subject in some of his most forthright commentary. He spoke against taking the vaccine and called it "a gene serum." That is an apt description as recent information shows the vaccine permanently changes the genetic makeup of the recipient. ( I guess I won't get too far off topic but even the adeno viral vector vaccines, AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, were extremely injurious in various ways to individuals who chose to take those kinds of COVID-19 vaccines. So be careful about thinking it is only mRNA types of vaccines.)
Here is Bishop Sanborn's "emergency video" of today)
....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DiYTHDDYEo.....
35:15 video runtime
His excellency Bishop Sanborn regards the excommunication of Archbishop Vigano a fortuitous event as it is an "act of war" or as I would say "a line in the sand" and offers a good opportunity to decide what side you are on.
________________
Luke 11:23 Douay-Rheims bible
He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.
https://biblehub.com/luke/11-23.htm
"To revise a comment from a famous early Sede, “I’m not saying I do not submit to the Pontiff, I am saying there is no Pontiff to submit to.”"
Yes, that "famous early Sede" is none other than Archbishop Levebvre. I remember Sede Bishop Donald Sanborn telling about hearing that spoken in person by the Archbishop's French language in a meeting in the USA, somewhere in New York, with several early sede priests. To hear that quote in French is amusing as it is full of pops and P sounds. Bishop Sanborn says it in one of the apologetics episodes now on YouTube.
.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1VX1NweFtg&list=PLEDlI7VhAW93x1_GkSm5bFlhmeKVk_EWq.....
Bishop Sanborn teaches seminary students from all over the world now in the Most Holy Trinity seminary in Reading Pennsylvania and he is able to teach in Latin, Italian, Spanish, and I think German, and maybe a little in Greek languages. Amazing!
(A bit off topic but Bishop Sanborn's early apologetics audio series have rencently become available for free on the True Restoration YouTube channel. It is outstanding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1VX1NweFtg&list=PLEDlI7VhAW93x1_GkSm5bFlhmeKVk_EWq
)
Thanks for the correction on the quote: I’d seen it attributed to Fr Chicoine, “You don’t have a mass to go to.”
My wife & I, who both converted before we were 30, long before we met, gained a great deal of peace when we no longer did the tapdancing through what Abp Viganò calls the “canonical abstractions” (of trying to maintain JMB is pope & V2 an actual Church Council). We subscribe to True Restoration, and it’s worth the annual cost.
My wife compares the whole thing to people who, seeing all the deaths and injuries obviously owing to the mRNA shot, have to explain that it’s anything BUT the shot. “Willful blindness” is her term: “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”.
When you say "thesis" I can't help but switch my mind to start filtering out a hegelian "argument".
It is a slippery slope, national/local sede churches. No different similar to the schismatic orthodox, which is rooted in the rulers of russia being from the Synagogue that definitely aims to destroy the Papacy, ei Alta Vendetta. It is my concern, Bannon and Trump favor/connection of Archbishop Vigano, Vigano calling Moscow the Third Rome. Yet, if the argue follows Francis not pope because of V2 errors, Archbisop Vigano was ordained by a V2 Council father Bishop Carlo Allorio. Im suprised that he did not stand with any other Bishop like Bishop Schneider or Bishop Vitus RIP that would show unity or prudence like with the stance of the SSPX and its affiliates. It seems red flags with all this coming together with the trials of Trump, Bannon and so on. That also the revelation of Mccarricks scandals came prior and during the same time during the lockdowns. Media frenzy which would've been cared for among the church authorities, but seems like the media press is all over this, which we should know now after the lockdowns who's really pushing the narrative and media. But the Synagogue and enemies of the Church and truth.All based on the algorithms should say a lot. If it was going to be throttled down of reach and so on like the truth was during the lockdowns. It is something to think about. God bless Archbishop Vigano and I pray for him. People are getting behind hiim, like the savior complex I see even traditional catholics falling behind Zionist supported Trump and Bannon.