Frankenherring: Francis as Red Herring. Neo-Cons and Neo-Trads , Practicing Gallican Revivalism, Act as if There is Only One Cuckoo in the Cuckoo's Nest.











https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/renowned-philosopher-signs-petition-calling-on-bishops-to-investigate-pope-for-heresy

Dr. Chojnowski: At the above link, we find Dr. Josef Seifert endorsing and adding his name to the admonition to Francis I about his heresies. In Dr. Maike Hickson's article, it is mentioned that Dr. Seifert is mentioned as a close friend of "Pope Saint John Paul II." Dr.  Seifert is known for being a "realist" phenomenologist --- having a von Hildebrandian version of the "realist" phenomenology practiced by Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) himself. Seifert was also head of the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein, which for decades was sponsored by John Paul II to propagate this version of philosophy put forward by Edmund Husserl to deal with the problem of knowledge stumbled into by Descartes and Kant which breaks the self-evident connection between our minds and the really existing material and non-material things in the world around us. Seifert's "realist" phenomenology ---- as in all forms of phenomenology --- "brackets" the question of WHETHER THE THINGS BEING KNOWN ACTUALLY EXIST --- and focuses on the "essential" structure of things AS THEY APPEAR TO THE MIND. Bad start for any investigation into reality, whether natural or supernatural. 

Now, while remaining silent on the endless heresies of Francis's post-Vatican predecessors, Seifert and, by implication, those at LifeSite News, are urging the "bishops of the Catholic Church" ---- all having been appointed by John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis himself (because they agreed with these men) to DO SOMETHING about Francis and his heresies. Here --- to use a little logic --- we find Seifert and the other signatories of this Gallican declaration, to be using Francis as a Red Herring that is used to distract us from the fact that the "official" doctrinal apostasy has been going on for 60 years now. John Paul II --- see the doctrinal work on this question done by Fr. Johannes Dormann ---- was the primary purveyor of the apostate doctrine of Universal Salvation. The notion that Christ unites himself in grace to all men IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE HUMAN. Good-bye need for the Catholic Church, the Sacraments, 10 Commandments --- pretty much everything. 

The idea of a "red herring" stems from the practice of fox hunters which involved training dogs to get the scent of the fox and not that WHICH SMELLED WORSE --- by putting herrings in a bag and dragging the back of smelly herrings down a fork in the road and then releasing a fox down another fork in the road. If the dogs smelled the stinky herrings and ran after them instead of smelling the slight scent of the fox, they were not much of a hunting dog. 

Let us, indeed, go after the heretical Modernists who have corrupted the faith of millions. But let us not get distracted by the obvious stench of Frankenherring. Granted, there is nothing worse than pickled fish!

Comments

  1. The signatories are using Francis as a red herring all right! We can bet most so-called conservatives, including the SSPX, are ready, willing and able to embrace another JP II or worse. They've become so lukewarm and anti-Catholic--any "Pope" will look like a saint to them after Frankenherring leaves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Let us, indeed, go after the heretical Modernists who have corrupted the faith of millions." Shouldn't we start somewhere, at least? Let be Jorge then.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know when we can begin to say the Orwellian Papacy came into being, but it has certainly existed in spades since Vatican 2. But before we lay the entire accounting of that evil council on our own times consider the 13th rule of Ignatius of Loyola On Thinking in Conformity with The Church "The white you see is black if the Hierarchical Church so judges." Modernism was preceded by Humanism and lots of new philosophies from the banker popes of the Renaissance and their defenders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least the banker popes weren't like the wicked, slothful servant in the Parable of the Talents:

      "And his lord answering said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed:
      Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury" (Matt. 25: 26-27 Douay-Rheims version).

      Delete
  4. Sounds like an argument for sedevacantism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another red herring: Dr. Josef Seifert compares the letter of accusations against Francis to Paul's correction of Peter. The R+R are always comparing the heretic to St. Peter because they want to change reality and mislead people into thinking Francis isn't all that bad.

    Also, remember when the R+R maintained that canonizations were infallible, a pope could never be a heretic, and he would never "officially" teach an error to the Church? That's all gone down the memory hole. Somehow the R+R mastered the techniques of changing the facts and persuaded people to deny the evidence of their own senses. This way the truth could either exist, or not, depending on the agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Good-bye need for the Catholic Church"

    The irony is that it this not only the result of the phenomenology of JP2, but also the result of 40+ years of R&R Gallicanism. The R&R Gallicans are utterly confused as to what or where the Church is, to the point that they regard the Church as not being infallible (such as councils and canonizations), and that the Church can actually teach error and heresy, and that the pope can be a heretic. And this is why they think they can judge the (man they consider the) pope. They need to go back and read and study what the Church teaches. The problem for them is that the catechism is either full of errors (yes an R&R priest told me this) or they skip the bits on the infallibility and authority of the Roman Pontiff because it shows that their position is erroneous, or they brush it off as "sedevacantism". The party line is more important, or following the right football team.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nothing about the Open Letter or the R&R position suggests Gallicanism, and anyone who thinks it does clearly does not understand in what the heresy of Gallicanism consists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything about the Open Letter and the R&R position represents Gallicanism. It's not surprising that the followers of the R&R don't know what Gallicanism is; that's probably because their leaders don't want them to know. Here is the definition from A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, Third Edition, 1958:

      The second, third, and fourth Gallican propositions were condemned by Vatican Council I. The second proposition declared the supremacy of ecumenical councils over the pope; the third affirmed the force and validity of the laws, customs and constitutions of the Gallican and other local churches; the fourth declared that the pope's judgment is not final unless the consent of the Church be added.

      Gallicanism is now professed only by the heretical sect of the Old Catholics (and the R&R).

      Delete
  8. The petition is preposterous because the authors still insist that the infernal, blaspheming, anti-Catholic, apostate, Destroyer is still "Pope"---until the "bishops" say he ain't. The Gallicans obviously took the opportunity to put a plug in for themselves.

    For decades, the faith is dried up and almost vanished, a whole multitude of souls is lost, and all that they could come up with was another stupid petition for the heretic "bishops" to laugh at. It would've been better if the signatories just sat and did nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pope Innocent IV (1200-1254) "usury is generally prohibited because if it were allowed all manners of evil would ensue...it is clear that practically every evil follows from usury." Aquinas and Augustine both write that original sin most clearly manifests itself in the love of money as do the scriptures and the most odious form of money making is usury. Dante coupled sodomy and usury as spiritual sins both born of the unnatural.....contra naturam. We had the renaissance banker popes who loved money. In 1822 Pius Vll dropped all charges against usurers. Ten years later Gregory the XVl took out a 35 million dollar loan from the House of Rothschild at 5%. Pius IX along with his financial advisor Pacelli (grandfather of Pius Xll) would take out another loan with the Rothschilds. The Vatican bank is a Rothschild operation. Can Peter love both God and money? We need to recover a sense of the papacy before the marrano jews got hold of it in the form of jesuitry. Back to the good old "dark" middle ages. Do I hear the distant voice of St Francis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We should bury our money in the ground (so that it doesn't gain interest) like the wicked, lazy servant in the parable of the talents.

      Delete
    2. We should hide our money in the ground (so it doesn't gain interest) like the wicked servant in the parable of the talents.

      Delete
  10. The first see is judged by no one, but the signatories to the Open Letter, acknowledging Francis to be pope, are judging him and are demanding that he be brought to trial. You cannot threaten the Roman Pontiff that he will suffer canonical consequences for a crime, because he is above the law. Gallicanism is, effectively, the restricting of the Roman Pontiff’s powers in such a manner that it can only practically be exercised with the consent of those subordinate to him. In a nutshell, it is an attitude of "we know better" than the pope. This attitude is within the Open Letter. Not a great definition I’m sorry, but there are plenty of books, articles, catechisms, the Catholic Encyclopaedia, etc, in which to find out more details concerning Gallicanism. Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus is anti-Gallican.

    The R&R position has the hallmarks Gallicanism. The man whom you say is the Roman Pontiff suppresses your pious union and seminary? It was unjust and we’ll carry on regardless. The man whom you say is Roman Pontiff canonizes saints? We’ll just check if he did it properly. The man whom you say is Roman Pontiff orders you to not consecrate bishops without his permission? We’ll just go ahead with it because the hotels have been booked for all the people coming and the tents are rented. The man whom you say is Roman Pontiff promulgates new ordination rites? We’ll have to go through them on a case by case basis to check whether your Orders are valid. This attitude destroys the Papacy in the minds of Catholics, just as much as accepting a heretic as pope. A few years ago, one of the "Resistance" priests gave a series of conferences against sedevacantism. In one of the conferences he admitted that all the 19th-20th century theologians taught that a pope falling into heresy loses office immediately without any declaration (as per Pope Paul IV's "Cum ex apostolatus", St Robert Bellarmine, Canon 188.4 of St Pius X’s Code of Canon Law, etc – not that he mentioned these), but he brushed them off and disagreed with them as they were all just "ultramontanists". So yes, they are Gallicans, and they pretty much admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Librorum, you better try again. What is evident is that neither you nor Dr. Chosnowski have any idea in what the heresy of Gallicanism consists.

    You say the R&R position has all the hallmarks of Gallicanism. I respond that the sede-vacantist position has all the hallmarks the Old Catholic heretics, the Donatist heretics, Wycliffe and Huss, the Spiritual Franciscans, and just about every other heretical sect that has ever split from the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, instead of playing games, please, do go ahead and explain in what you think the heresy of Gallicanism consists. Explain also how the R+R is not Gallican when it rejects 100% of the "Pope's" teaching authority---including his canonizations and synods. If you're Catholic, tell us why you are clueless that canonizations are infallible and irreformable---and that synods are binding when the pope fully co-operates with them, participates in them, or confirms them?

      Tell us what happened to the R+R's promises that a true pope would never, ever "officially" teach errors to the Church. Also, tell us what happened to the R+R's promises that the Holy Spirit would never, ever allow a false canonization. You do think Francis is a real pope, don't you?

      You haven't provided a jot of evidence for your conclusions. Instead of demanding from your opponent that he address more and more points after he has already provided enough, why don't you go ahead and prove to us that your "Pope" is Catholic? Also, please answer all the other questions above... We are waiting. If you keep on submitting baseless opinions, it only shows how badly you want to be in the dark.

      Delete
  12. What a laugh. If anything resembles the Old Catholics, it's the R&R. They practically deny the infallibility of the pope. He's just a figurehead.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Francis Drives Neo-Traditionalists and Neo-Conservatives to Full Blown Gallicanism. Just Released Open Letter Accuses Francis of Formal and Public Heresy ---- Still Calls Him Pope ---- and demands that the "bishops of the Catholic Church" Depose Him if He Does Not Respond to and Obey Their Admonition.

"Paris will be burned" ---- Our Lady of La Salette: Collapsed Spire, Collapsed Catholic Civilization. How the Notre Dame Fire is an Image of the Real Church's Situation Today.

Prominent Remnant Writer Endorses Sister Lucy Truth Project! Thank You for Your Support Ann Barnhardt, We are Advancing to the Truth on All Fronts. The Evidence We are Collecting and Presenting to the World, Will Speak for Itself.

World Congress of Families Fights Back Against the New Anti-Christ Europe. Italy, Russia, Hungary, Moldova and Poland Sign Up to Defend Christian Civilization.