After Fire: Anglicans Use Catholic Cathedral

"Ignoramus"? :D THIS from guy who famously claimed, "Who wears in the Church a white-buttoned cassock?"Is there any other dignity in the Church connected with one? A bishop? A cardinal? A common priest? No, only the Pope."

Heck, not only was I linking up "common priests" (Norbertines, if anyone's curious) I found a blog with Catholic seminarians wearing white cassocks!

But just for lulz. Let's see... you asked about bishops and I don't reall covering that one. Bishop in a white cassock? Let's upgrade it to "Archbishop"

veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/…/archbishop-lefe…

But according to you, "No, only the Pope" wears a white cassock.

...and that, my dear V.R.S., Is "baloney" written by an "ignoramus". Any claim you make from now on needs extensive supporting documentation.

"Read in any theology manual what heresy is and is not ."

Better still, weI can read in Canon Law 751 "what heresy is and is not". That is the official definition of the Catholic Church. After all, not all "theology manuals" even have an imprimatur. ;-)

You don't know what you're talking about. You're ignornat, stubborn and rude. As I've pointed out before, people like you are the reason Poland became the world's stereotype for stupidity.

and your comments here confirm it. Your own personal credibility on GTV is shot. Gone. Adios. Do widzenia. :P

Then we have @Be Ye Separate From The Church who favors the false summary and, in a pinch, the outright lie.

"The other day you admitted that False Francis handed over the authority of selecting bishops... Communist Chinese Government."

Did I, now? ;-) An admission is a statement. Statements can be quoted verbatim. The online venues (i.e. posts) where statements are made can be linked. Please do both.

Since I can reliably count on you not to find your own backside with both hands and a map, the place you should be looking is over here.

Pope Francis’ critics are dividing the church and families—including mine.

I have every confidence you WON'T quote me directly because I made no such admission. Because it's wrong. (From Wiki:)

--"However, in September 2018 China and the Holy See signed an agreement allowing the Pope to appoint and veto bishops approved by the Communist Party of China."--

--"...While the agreement states that China will recommend bishops before they are appointed by the popeit also stipulates that the pope has authority to veto a bishop China recommends."--

So technically, your statement. "False Francis handed over the authority of selecting bishops... Communist Chinese Government." is wrong.

Since Pope Francis has the final say to appoint and veto Chinese bishops, he retains final authority in the matter and the Chinese government accepts that.

--With regard to the provisional agreement, Pope Francis said that “what is here is dialogue about the eventual candidates. This is done in dialogue. But Rome nominates, the pope nominates. That is clear!”--

www.americamagazine.org/…/pope-francis-ex…

The common perception of the "deal" and the provisions within it are technically very different.

Since you are making this "deal" the basis for your earlier claim of "assisting in persecuting", that claim of yours fails too.

All of which STILL has nothing to do with your obviously obstinate doubt that "saint" John Paul II is not a saint.

Saints are not infallible. They can err, even sin, as do we all.

You are advancing what is clearly an "obstinate doubt" contrary to the Church's teachings on the "communion of Saints" and the Church's ability to discern them. Under Canon Law 751 that is heresy and you are a heretic.

Saints are ultimately approved by the Pope. By challenging Saint John Paul's sainthood, you are also refusing to admit to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff on this matter. That is schism.under Canon Law 751 and you are a schismatic even if you weren't already a heretic..

According to Canon Law 1364 Section 1, "a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;"

I call you @Be Ye Separate From The Church for a reason. It isn't idle name-calling or flippancy. It's demonstrable fact based on Canon Law on literally two separate points..

You are not a part of the Catholic Church.

@Ultraviolet
"weI can read in Canon Law 751 "what heresy is and is not". That is the official definition of the Catholic Church"
---
As the typical product of the era of village idiots who discover google search engine yes, you can find and read Canon 751 but you are unable to understand it. It refers to divinely revealed truths not to personal decisions proclaimed as the result of the canonization process. And those post-conciliar luminaries who publish such decisions believe that there were in the past and can be erroneus examples of the cult of saints in the Church. The very person who proclaimed the so-called sainthood of John Paul II has admitted that he deems canonizations as fallible.

"Your musings are as usual TLTR." -V.R.S.

I apologize if your chicken-brain attention span was overburdened by too many citations. Maybe if you spent less time posting mindless drivel absent any support at all, your attention span might increase.

In your case, I'm doing chickens a disservice with the comparison.

"So I shall refer only to the first paragraph. As the ingoramus with infantile emotions you often refer to other people's comments not reading them with understanding."

Oh, I'm going to have SO much fun with you.... :D

"Because I doubt your English is so poor that you are unable to understand what "white button" means."

The blog post I linked was discussing the white cassock in general. As such, it did include a photo of a white cassock with coloured buttons.

It also included TWO pictures of Archbishop Lefebre. White cassock, white buttons. You didn't check. You looked at the coloured photo and, thanks to your non-existent attention span, you never bothered to look at both of the black and whites.

Let's revisit your statement since you deserve a thorough thrashing. You need to learn your place.

"Who wears in the Church a white-buttoned cassock?"Is there any other dignity in the Church connected with one? A bishop? A cardinal? A common priest? No, only the Pope."

I've already shown Archbishop Lefebre doing so once before, but let's pay the man a friendly visit again.

marcellefebvre.info/en/content/8801

Check that neat little button right above his cross. :D

Direct link to the photo just in case the "ignoramus" can't find it on his own. .
marcellefebvre.info/…/p-delegate.jpg

Meanwhile. over in the land of Norbertines...

www.facebook.com/…/101587702929590…

Front and center. White Cassock, clearly white buttons.

Also here:

norbertines.org/remembering-abb…

We're not done. I'm dealing with a stupid Pole. This is where the world's Polish jokes come from. So now...

Let's Meet The Norbertines of Daylesford Abbey

Relevant photo from YouTube, just in case your attention span prevents you from sitting through the video.
i.ytimg.com/…/maxresdefault.j…

See? This is what happens when you're wrong. Arguing the point further only brings up more evidence of that fact.

Then we have this winner....

"It refers to divinely revealed truths not to personal decisions proclaimed as the result of the canonization process."

...which self-evident and irrelevant to the point I made when I raised Canon Law in the first place.

Canon Law is a better and more authoritatve source for defining heresy than what you listed: "any theology manual", particularly when you supplied none whatsoever.

Seems you fancy yourself a theologian and your expertise in that field rivals your skill as a haberdasher. :D

"The very person who proclaimed the so-called sainthood of John Paul II admitted that he deems canonizations as fallible."

Citation where he admits this? None supplied. Typical of you.

The theoretical possibility is not evidence it applies to John Paul II.

Also, others have a far higher opinion of the Pope's authority in this matter than this one does for himself. That's assuming you didn't simply make it up as you did with your claims about white cassocks.

Francis is, perhaps, modest and overcautious to a fault.

You should follow his good example instead of showcasing your own ignorance.

www.ewtn.com/…/canonizations-a…

---Thus, with the act of canonization the Pope, so to speak, imposes a precept upon the faithful by saying that the universal Church must henceforth keep the memory of the canonized with pious devotion.

The 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia discusses the theological foundation for the infallibility of canonization: "The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. ... St. Thomas Aquinas says, 'Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err' (Quodl. 9:8:16).---

No worries, I understand Canon Law and the concept of a revealed truth far better than you do. Heck you can't even look at button without managing to fall on your face.

More tellingly, I present factual support for my claims, in this case a quote from a real theologian who quotes no on e less than St. Thomas Aquinas

I also present factual contradiction for your claims, regardless of the specific stupidity you utter.

All you've supplied is.... nothing... just your big dumb mouth. As I said, your credibility is gone.

Friendly suggestion. Save your sneering about the "era of village idiots who discover google search engine" when you finally learn to use it effectively.

Instead, you've made a virtue out of your inability to do so.

Google can correct ignorance, but it can't fix stupid.

Rather a harsh assessment of a pontiff who's 'political skills' certainly caused himself and the church, unnecessary turmoil, yet he was religiously motivated to steer the 'Barque of Peter' through the stormy waters of post Vatican2. Nor should we overlook his courage and physical legacy of the attempted assassination on his life. Destructive? An adjective more properly associated with evil intent or natural disasters. As to his sainthood. Leave that to God.

@Alex A
You are naive, Sir. You are leaving his Assisi sainthood to God, now they want you to honor him as the "doctor of the Church" *) Yes they have been doing preparations for about a year to perform that new insanity. We must say: enough - no more doubtful saints of the revolution, no more unholy "Trinities" (Roncalli-Montini-Wojtyla) forced upon the Church almost as mockery of saintly popes of the past. The revolution wants us to think that nowadays, in the time of unprecedent crisis of the Faith caused by her (i.e the revolution), we live in the unprecedented era of the papal sanctity.Yes - the unprecedented because in the ancient times almost all popes were venerated because of their martyrdom. Yes I consider the canonization of Wojtyla, made by the doubtful man - impious J. M. Bergoglio, not by God, as very doubtful.

*) cf. e.g. zenit.org/…/spokesman-of-po…

" he was religiously motivated" to kiss the blasphemous Quran, patronize placing the Buddha idol on the altar of St. Peter, quote Talmud during his"catechesis", give blessing together with the cos-player from Canterbury, force days of judaism and islamism upon the Church in his mother country, claim in his official letters that heretical sects are sources of salvation and sanctity, claim that the Holy Spirit works in false religions, etc. Quite a peculiar "religious motivation" I think.

V2 Bishop Carol Wojtyla- As JP2 Worships With Pagans

Here is a sample of the pagans that JP2 Worshipped with at Assisi: "Pope John Paul II and the representatives of the world’s religions, including a Crow Indian medicine man from Montana and an African animist witch doctor, pledged Monday to work for peace."

"As part of his private prayer ceremony in the small church of San Gregorio, the elderly medicine man blessed spectators who volunteered to join his ceremony by laying a ritual fan of feathers on their heads and chanting an American Indian prayer in the Crow language.". -LA Times