Francis Promotes Another Pro-Gay Bishop To Important See

There's nothing "preternatual" about it. The chain of causation is entirely mundane and conservatives have been documenting it for over half a century. Radical leftism pre-dates Pope Francis.

"Pope John XXIII is not a Saint."

You're contradicting a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church, Jimbo. That's heresy. CCC 828 CCC 2089

This is a common problem among what I call "cafeteria Catholics". They pick and choose which teachings they're going to follow, which saints and Popes they're going to recognize and so on. You'll see plenty of it in action when Matty shows up sometime and tries to defend his rabid Jew-hating.

If you've got a genuine problem with derpy anti-Semites, you're going to LOVE GTV. :D

The Church recognizes Saints. You are contradicting a claim by the Church. So yes, you ARE contradicting the teachings of the Church.

"since we don't have to pray to saints or follow anything they do or say"

I didn't advance either point. You doing so is a non-sequitur. However, contradicting the Church's teachings (in this case, the recognition of sainthood) isn't a negotiable item. Doing so is heresy. If you'd like to split hairs on whether it's "only" schism, be my guest. :D.

If you believe otherwise, YOU need to support your claim. A direct quote from Canon Law or the Catechism would do nicely. Links would help.

The Church recognizes Saints. It doesn't mandate we pray to them for our salvation. And it isn't dogma. Indeed, every dead Catholic person who dies in a state of grace is part of the community of saints. So while you may say I am a heretic, I am not. This is basic. I'm sorry you can't comprehend the difference between dogma and custom, or that you can't comprehend the fact that the Church has made mistakes in the latter area but I don't answer to you. Surely there has to be something better to do on a Friday night than try and correct me. Because 1, you can't and 2, it's embarrassing (for you).

"The Church recognizes Saints. It doesn't mandate we pray to them for our salvation."

I didn't say they did. If you wish to argue otherwise, quote me directly. Otherwise, it's an implicit strawman argument.

The Church recognizes saints, correct. The Church has recognized John XXIII is saint. That is an official teaching of the Church. You are contradicting that teaching (your words) "Pope John XXIII is not a Saint."

Your claim has nothing to do with whether we, as Catholics, choose to pray to one saint or another, or even if we "must" pray to them at all, which we don't.

Contradicting (and obstinately doubting) the teachings of the Church does fall under heresy/ schism (depending on the extent of the contradiction).

"So while you may say I am a heretic, I am not. This is basic."

You need to look up the definition of heresy, according to the Catholic Church. It's why I linked it up for you in the first place, dummy.

"I'm sorry you can't comprehend the difference between dogma and custom"

I can. Unfortunately -you- are working from an incorrect understanding of how the Church defines heresy.

"you can't comprehend the fact that the Church has made mistakes in the latter area"

Fist, you've shown none. So it's another empty unsupported claim, typical of you. Second, you haven't shown any evidence the Church errred regarding John XXIII either. Again, typical of you.

Your say-so isn't good enough, bunky. ;-)

"Surely there has to be something better to do on a Friday night than try and correct me. Because 1, you can't and 2, it's embarrassing (for you)."

You're assuming the validity of a correction is dependant upon you acknowledging it. You really are a bottom tier logician.

Protip: I already have. :D

"I would theorize that every declaration of Sainthood since John XXIII needs to be scrutinized all over again"

Good for you. Until you can gain the Church's corroboration for both your theory and the conclusion you derived "John XXIII is not a saint", it remains your own and at variance with the Church's official position. Which brings us back to CCC 2089

"since the Church post Vatican 2 is modernist, silly, and lost."

...and that's wrong too.

You've got to break this stupid habit of making sweeping generalizations and then arguing from them.

All it takes is one counter example and your claim fails entirely. Like so:

The FSSP is a.) post Vatican 2, b.) traditionalist, c.) reverential, and d.) orthodox.

"Some they may have gotten right, some not."

That's you're opinion, and again, at variance with the Church's official position. See my earlier point on how the Church defines heresy.

"But the fact that the Church is currently in the hands of evil makes those declarations suspect."

That's a genetic fallacy, btw. Again, sloppy reasoning.

I'll give you an example. The current pontiff's intentions are, prima facie, quite laudible. How he may wish to see them implemented might not be. ;-)

But they aren't automatically "suspect" just because they come from Pope Franics.