Francis Will Cause No Schism


The buffoon on the right could never kick you out of the Church.  

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: 

Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.

This definition coincides with what the average Pewsitter answers when he is requested to define schism: someone separates himself from the union with the Church. 

Mind, here, that the definition – and the common parlance – refers schism to the Church, not to the Pope. One is not in schism purely because he separates himself from the Pope, or the Pope separates himself from him. One is in schism because he has cut himself off from the Church.

Let us, therefore, imagine Francis (he about whom nothing is unimaginable) state that those who support the death penalty have separated themselves from the body of the Church and are now officially in schism. Most certainly, every well-instructed Catholic would refuse to give obedience to the Evil Clown in such a matter. However, they would most certainly not be in any schism whatsoever. They would be as part of the Church as they always were. They would also (being Catholics) most certainly not go around creating a parallel “church” under, say, Pope Pius XIII Williamson (no, I think even he would never do that). They would never declare themselves “severed” from the Church in any way whatsoever. They would simply point out that the Pope is a heretic, and a heretical Pope will not be obeyed in everything that is heretical or going against the Church.

I also would find confusing to state, in such a circumstance, that the Pope is in schism himself. No, he clearly isn’t, because he has never declared severed the ties who bind him to the social organisation of the Church. In order to do so, he would have to resign and declare himself separated from the Church, which he will clearly never do. One might say that he has put himself in a factual state of schism (as in the case of the notorious Dutch Schism), but even in this case this factual separation would concern him, not you; and would still make of him the Pope exactly in the same way as the Dutch bishops remained bishops, continued to validly ordain priests, and were never deposed.   

What Francis would be doing, and what he actually does with Fornicationis Laetitia and his many satanical statements, is “restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics“. 

Present scenario:

Pope is heretic. Faithful remain faithful to the Church, and refuse to obey the Pope. No schism happens. Pope is deposed, or not. If Pope is not deposed, his appointments of Cardinals are valid – and therefore his successors are validly elected – until a Council decides on the matter of the orthodoxy of both his papacy and his successors. If Pope is deposed, Council decides about the validity of his acts and appointments whilst being a heretical Pope.

We, the simple Pewsitters, do not decide any of that. We cannot depose Popes. We are worried about dying in the state of Grace. To do this, it is highly advisable to do our best to help the right side. But it’s not for us to foresee when, and how, the Lord will put an end to this. It is also not for us to talk of schism, because no matter how heretical the Pope becomes, we remain and want to die in communion with the Church. Church, obviously, seen as the Bride of Christ, not the Vatican Gay Mafia, no matter how bad the latter may become.

The Church is the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”, not Francis’ Gay Sauna. It is not for Francis to declare you in or out, if he is being heretical in so doing.

You are still in. He is still a heretic. That’s it.

Once again, it seems to me this talk of “schism” derives from excessive and wrong consideration for the figure of the Pope.  It is as if some people would think that if the Pope officially converted to Islam the Catholics would have to a) do the same or b) be in schism, because ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia and if the Pope is now within Islam, then so must you. Nonsense. 

Francis will cause no schism. He will cause (more or less) widespread disobedience to his heresy, but he will not be able to cause any schism, or to cause obedient Catholics to declare themselves in schism, or to separate even only one of the faithful from the “society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ”. 

Pray for the painless death of the Evil Clown. Pray also for his conversion as sincerely as you can, though I think his death is by far the most probable and the only assured outcome. Pray that the Lord may soon put an end to this scourge. But never, never go around talking of schism.

Let him be a heretic.

You will remain faithful. 





Posted on September 22, 2016, in Bad Shepherds, Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. I don’t actually pray for the death of anyone, but I get your point.

    Watch; Given time, after the Lord sifts the Church a little more, and we will get a holy Pope who acts like a holy Pope, one who is also by the way a man, and acts like a man, and makes some decisions the Sauerkraut Luthero-Catholics don’t like, they and a few of their buddies like Cupich and Turkson will form a “conclave” and “elect” their own “Pope” and the game will be on!

    It’s happened in the past and I reckon we are going to see it again.

    And THEN we will have our schism.

    THEY will boot themselves out.

    And at this point, I say good riddance.

    Betcha a hundred liras!!

    • You are not, of course, obliged to pray for the death of a Pope. However, some theologian say that you can (and other say that you should) pray for the painless death of a Pope that is a disgrace to the Church. I think it’s a good exercise in, again, deciding what is more important to us: a human being or the Church.

      I hear you about the future schism. But then again i suspect those who would do such a thing would have been schismatics inside for a long time. The orthodox Pope would only force them to realise this.

  2. Good writing Mundabor,
    I bet you have some blood of st Thomas Moore. 😉
    We can quote st Robert Bellarmine too, for this purpose:
    – “Licet, inquam, ei resistere non faciendo quod iubet et impediendo ne exequatur voluntatem suam; non tamen licet eum iudicare vel punire vel deponere, quod non est nisi superioris.”
    – “It is allowed, I say, to resist him [pope], not doing what he ordered or preventing to carry out his will; but is not allowed to judge him, or punish him or overthrow, which belongs to no one, except the one who is above him.”
    De Romano Pontifice, lib. II., cap. 29.

    • Well it depends what he means with “judging” (I think he means “formally condemn”, “indict”). Obviously, resistance implies the judgment that the order is heretical or harmful to the Church, surely?

  3. [EDIT: link cancelled]

    • Hi Zara,
      I have cancelled the link because I do not want this site to be a propaganda channel for Francis. However, I took note of it and if it is linked to it will be with the opportune (not nice) comment of mine.

  4. M,
    I agree with that. That is precisely what I see what st. Robert Bellarmine means with “judging”.

    • isn’t it another sign of our time that nowadays having the most elementary of sound opinions is seen negatively and branded “judging”? Mind, this only applied to the tattoed slut with pink metallic hair, though. Let these people know that someone wants to votes for Trump, and the condemnation will be brutal.

  5. Our Blessed Lord has said that WHEN we judge, we are to judge righteous judgment and not judge by appearances.

    So we do not judge the looks of the Pope or the thoughts of the Pope or the heart of the Pope. Neither do we judge the Pope in any judicial way; that is, we laymen cannot depose a Pope {what the Cardinals can do is another issue of debate}.

    But we certainly CAN judge the words of a Pope against the Truth of Scripture and the perennial Magesterium of the Church to determine if they are in simple agreement with that perennial Magesterium, can we not?

    And when a Pope tells me and the rest of the whole world, quote “I am by nature irresponsible” and backs that statement up with a litany of statements clearly encouraging heresy, I take him at his word.

    In discussions of an heretical Pope we always get hung up on the “formality” of a Pope’s potential heresy, of THIS Pope’s potential “formal” heresy. On that score, let’s remember the Synod of Pistoia was condemned for 2 things:

    1} formal heresy and

    2} statements that encouraged heresy by nature of their ambiguity.

    The CCC 1697 states that clarity MUST be a component of the proper presentation of the Gospel.

    At best, Jorge Bergoglio is ambiguous in the extreme. Does ANYONE doubt that, even his allies?

%d bloggers like this: