- Updated December 28, 2019
Apparently, One Peter Five's Eric Sammons is accusing the Catholic resistance against the heresies of Francis of schism.
Sammons needs to read some Catholic history books.
The Arian heretics were saying the same thing as One Peter Five's Sammons is saying about the Catholic resistance about St. Athanasius. That he was in schism.
The historian Warren Carroll admitted that Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius which isn't an infallible papal action.
(EWTN.com, "Has any Pope been Guilty of Heresy")
(As an interesting note, in the article above the historian Carroll said "I deny that any Pope was ever a heretic." He wrote this before Francis)
The saint was resisting the Arian heretic bishops outside the papal approval.
Cardinal John Henry Newman said he ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops (apparently outside papal approval since he was excommunicated).
Newman in his "The Development of Christian Doctrine" denied that Bishop Athanasius's "interference" in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:
"If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference."
(Gutenberg.org, "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," Sixth Edition)
Are you saying that Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius was a schismatic?
Moreover, Mr. Sammons, please, stop using the following straw man agrument against serious scholars who question the validity of the Francis papacy by saying "the underlying assumption is that Francis can't be the pope because Francis is a heretic."
(One Peter Five, "Is Francis the Pope," October 29, 2019)
Yes, Mr. Sammons, we in the Catholic resistance and the 19 Scholar's Open Letter do say that Francis is a material heretic, but that is not our "underlying assumption" as to why Francis's papacy may be invalid.
Please read and give serious agruments against Bishop Rene Gracida's Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici gregis calling for an investigation into the Francis conclave.
Please read and give serious agruments against canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo's in-depth thesis "Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983" using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing.
If you, Mr. Sammons, are not willing to do this then, please, at least stop making inane straw man agruments.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Apparently, One Peter Five's Eric Sammons is accusing the Catholic resistance against the heresies of Francis of schism.
Sammons needs to read some Catholic history books.
The Arian heretics were saying the same thing as One Peter Five's Sammons is saying about the Catholic resistance about St. Athanasius. That he was in schism.
The historian Warren Carroll admitted that Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius which isn't an infallible papal action.
(EWTN.com, "Has any Pope been Guilty of Heresy")
(As an interesting note, in the article above the historian Carroll said "I deny that any Pope was ever a heretic." He wrote this before Francis)
The saint was resisting the Arian heretic bishops outside the papal approval.
Cardinal John Henry Newman said he ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops (apparently outside papal approval since he was excommunicated).
Newman in his "The Development of Christian Doctrine" denied that Bishop Athanasius's "interference" in the dioceses of the heretical Arian bishops was schism:
"If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference."
(Gutenberg.org, "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," Sixth Edition)
Are you saying that Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius was a schismatic?
Moreover, Mr. Sammons, please, stop using the following straw man agrument against serious scholars who question the validity of the Francis papacy by saying "the underlying assumption is that Francis can't be the pope because Francis is a heretic."
(One Peter Five, "Is Francis the Pope," October 29, 2019)
Yes, Mr. Sammons, we in the Catholic resistance and the 19 Scholar's Open Letter do say that Francis is a material heretic, but that is not our "underlying assumption" as to why Francis's papacy may be invalid.
Please read and give serious agruments against Bishop Rene Gracida's Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici gregis calling for an investigation into the Francis conclave.
Please read and give serious agruments against canon law expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo's in-depth thesis "Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983" using exhaustive quotations from canon law showing why canon law explicitly states that ministerium and munus cannot be synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the same thing.
If you, Mr. Sammons, are not willing to do this then, please, at least stop making inane straw man agruments.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Comments
https://twitter.com/EricRSammons/status/1210553943178252288
That schism is a sin against the faith. But all who have ever read the Summa of Theology of Saint Thomas or any treatise on Schism know that it is a sin AGAINST CHARITY, A SIN AGAINST COMMUNION. Not a sin against faith. Both schismatics and those from whom they break might, theoretically, agree on all matters of doctrine and morals.
So if Mr. Sammons wants to look credible, he should at least read a tract on Schism written by a sound theology before tweeting inanities on Twitter.