"And who can fail to note the irony that on the eve of the five-hundredth anniversary of Luther’s famous 95 Theses that split the Church apart, some Traditionalists, with their own theses, want to do the same?"

And who can fail to note the irony that Francis is going to Sweden next year to commemorate the 500th anniversary of that same "Reformation," including participation in a joint liturgy with faux Lutheran "bishops" who condone abortion, contraception, divorce, the "ordination" of women and practicing homosexuals, and who would be viewed a worthy of the flames by Luther himself? Surely we Catholics have not lost the capacity to recognize this kind of thing as simply insane.

There is more to the Remnant's position than the rhetoric and tone of one column. This entire critique is an appeal to emotion, designed to elicit booing and hissing from the reader.

Meanwhile, serious observers of the Catholic scene, in the United States and Europe, both traditionalist and non-traditionalist, recognize the crisis this papacy represents: the first Pope in Church history beloved by the worldly powers, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. A Pope who, as Antonio Socci so rightly declares in his book-length open letter to the Pope, has set about "attacking the Church" instead of her enemies.

And Francis responded with a personal note to Socci, thanking him for the book and the criticisms, which are as harsh as anything the Remnant has written.

There is more to this situation than meets Médaille's eye.

The phrase 'worthy of the flames' is full of a kind of glee that makes one unwilling to take much else that you say seriously. You are talking about eternal damnation and might do well to throw the prospect around with more awe and humility and a little less zest.

And, as a side note, Francis is not the first Pope in history to be beloved by worldly powers. John XXIII was beloved by worldly powers. He was beloved by everyone. He's now a saint.

Does anybody here appeal to anything but emotion? You attribute "glee" to me so avoid the merits of what I say? There is nothing gleeful about the phrase "worthy of the flames." It means only that even Luther would have regarded today's loony pro-abortion Lutherans as heretics who should be burned at the stake.

No Pope in Church history has received the world's praise like this Pope. That is a very bad sign, as Our Lord himself made clear.

As for John XXIII, why was he known in the press as "the good Pope"? If you are honest, you will admit that it was not because he was a strong defender of faith and morals, but rather because he was perceived, unlike the hated Pius XII, as someone who would revolutionize the Church and bring it down to the world's level at last. With Francis, the same thing is happening but on a much vaster scale.

Finally, the press hated Benedict but loves Francis. That tells you nothing? It speaks volumes to me.

While I agree with most of what you say--particularly the evil inherent in praising Luther--trying to juxtapose Benedict with the other Vatican II popes is a fool's errand. Don't be misled by the sheep's clothing. He was every bit as heretical and destructive to the Church as the rest. In fact, he was the mastermind behind much of the false ecumenism we've seen over the last 40+ years.

There's argumentum ad passiones, and then there's the simple observation that someone is arguing emotionally. Emma wasn't appealing to the emotions of the audience, she was talking about yours, which are evident, and therefore revealing.

Oy vey! ANOTHER reference to "emotions"? Based on nothing more than the obvious fact that Luther would want to burn the loony Lutherans of today at the stake? And what does that have to do with MY "emotions"? I am talking about Luther's, for heaven's sake.

What a hopeless muddle these com boxes are.

What? Try reading the sentence again. He is saying it's ironic the a "pope" would praise Luther when Luther would have declared the papacy (and those in communion with it) as on the path to Hell.

It's far more than ironic though. Francis' actions are demonic. And all you so-called Catholics need to wake up.

Ann Barnhardt is a crackpot. But Francis is worse. He's clearly turning the Church over to Progressives theologically to be our new interpreters of the Council and all things Catholic; and one need not explicitly change one iota of doctrine to do so. Progressives don't work that way.

Some may like aspects of his social teachings but he's making these a substitute for orthodoxy as a whole. For him the Works of Mercy are cover for an "evolving" Church. Whew.

No, we need not foolishly pronounce on Canonical matters higher than our pay grade. But we needn't obey those who do not obey Tradition either. It's as simple as that.

Prescinding from the comment on Barnhardt, I agree with you. I should note that her blog post was just that. Her fault was saying publicly and harshly what so many are saying privately, including priests who say the New Mass with whom I have had numerous conversations. These mainstream priests, several of whom have written publicly against Francis under pseudonyms, say things in private about this wayward pontificate that go even beyond what Barnhardt has written.

Also commenting quite harshly on Francis are people like Germain Grisez, who is hardly a traditionalist: "I’m afraid that Pope Francis has failed to consider carefully enough the likely consequences of letting loose with his thoughts in a world that will applaud being provided with such help in subverting the truth it is his job to guard as inviolable and proclaim with fidelity. For a long time he has been thinking these things. Now he can say them to the whole world — and he is self-indulgent enough to take advantage of the opportunity with as little care as he might unburden himself with friends after a good dinner and plenty of wine."

Funny how Médaille held his fire when people like this were saying things like that. Only the Remnant gets it in the neck.

The confusion evident in this critic of the Remnant is between the Church and the Pope. The Pope is not the Church but rather its guardian. His mission is to defend the deposit of the Faith, not to bask in the world's applause for attacking "rigorists" and "small-minded rules." To oppose many of the things Francis has said and done is not to oppose "the Church." It is, rather, to oppose Francis in matters where he has harmed the Church.

The idea that Francis is an "anti-Modernist" because he (rightly enough) condemns the excesses of capitalism and the modern cult of the individual is enticing but ultimately misleading. Anti-Modernism involves far more than a critique of economic liberalism and personal selfishness. The Modernist attacks the dogmas of the faith, causing havoc in the realm of sacred theology, not just the social teaching. The "Modernist as reformer," to use Saint Pius X's phrase, attacks the traditions of the Church in her liturgy and ancient customs.

Quoth Francis in Evangelii Gaudium: " I dream of a 'missionary option,' that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation.

And this from the same manifesto: "More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: “Give them something to eat” (Mk 6:37)."

These are not the opinions of an anti-Modernist, for heaven's sake. No Pope has ever set up a false opposition between evangelism and the Church's self-preservation or accused the Church of allowing people to starve spiritually because of her "rules" and "habits." Ironically, if people are starving spiritually today it is because the Church has abandoned so many of her "rules" and "habits," emptying both the pews and the seminaries---except where the "rules" and "habits" have been maintained or restored.

We need to get beyond the kind of grandstanding evident in this article and confront the reality of a crisis in the Church that has arisen precisely because she has already done what Francis wants: "transforming everything." The result of the attempted transformation, as Pope Benedict admitted, has been "calamity," including "banalization" of the liturgy and the collapse of religious and priestly vocations (outside of traditionalist orders). In sum, a catastrophic failure.

The Emporia is naked and someone finally said it, and everyone is horribly shocked.

Dr. Medaille, I imagine, would have similarly critiqued Grisez had he called for deposing the pope.

Fraternal correction and civil criticism are not the same as calling for him to be deposed.

No one is calling for deposing the Pope. Read this article from First Things: http://www.crisismagazine.c... hardly a "rad trad" publication, for an intelligent discussion on the teaching of Suarez and Bellarmine on how a Pope might depose himself and merely be declared to have done so by a council of bishops. No one can depose a Pope. The article in question is a serious discussion of the issue as opposed to a lot of booing and hissing.

Putting aside considerations of rhetoric and tone, there is a serious theological argument underlying the lone provocative blog post at issue here.

The teaching of doctors the Church, including Bellarmine, is that a Pope who "attempts destroy the Church" (Bellarmine) can not only be opposed by the faithful and his commands impeded, but further (admittedly only a theoretical remedy), a council of cardinals could declare that a Pope who had fallen into heresy had deposed himself.

Mr. Médaille's knowledge of this question appears to be superficial to nonexistent. Consider this article from First Things---http://www.crisism... which is hardly a "rad trad" publication. Therein we read:

"Suarez thinks that, just like Christ bestows the papacy on the man whom the Church elects, so also Christ takes away the papacy from the man whom the Church convicts (De fide 10.6.10). *So, if a pope commits the sin of heresy, all the other bishops of the world have the right to try him for the crime of heresy, even against his will (De fide 10.6.7). If they were to convict him, he could be considered deposed from the papacy by Christ, and the Church could elect another pope.*

First Things continues:

*Bellarmine was more hesitant about the whole question. Unlike Suarez, he did not take it as a given that the pope could be a formal heretic. Actually, Bellarmine considered it “probable” that God would prevent the pope from ever being a formal heretic (he says it twice: De Romano Pontifice 2.30 and 4.2). *Nevertheless, Bellarmine was willing to consider what would be the case if the pope could fall into formal heresy.*"

And more:

"If we assume that the pope could be a formal heretic, Bellarmine thinks Suarez’s opinion is wrong. Suarez allows the bishops to judge the pope. But one of Gratian’s basic rules is that no one can judge the pope. Sure, Suarez has Christ carrying out the judgment, but it is only because the other bishops of the Church have pronounced the judgment first.

"Instead, Bellarmine adopts the position that Suarez rejected: *the pope loses his office immediately by committing the sin of formal heresy,* because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church. *It’s true that the bishops could still get together and make a declaration that God had deposed the pope, but their declaration would not be a judgment in any real sense, only an acknowledgement of what God had already done. (De Romano Pontifice 2.30)*

You would never know from reading Médaille's screed that there is a serious theological basis for the admittedly rather raunchy blog post. Suarez says the Church can judge the Pope to be deposed, whereas Bellarmine says the Church can merely declare that the Pope has deposed himself.

Further, Médaille, getting it exactly backwards, accuses the Remnant of advocating a schism from Francis when, as Suarez notes, a Pope by his own acts can fall into schism vis-a-vis the Church, triggering the crisis he and Bellarmine both address theoretically and with full freedom of opinion in the Church. Tellingly, Suarez cites the example of a Pope who would change all the rites of the Church.

In a book by Aidan Nichols, who is no rad trad by any means, we read the following matter-of-fact statement: "theologians have noted that even the Pope could become a schismatic: for instance... by ignoring the constitution of the Church..." (Rome and the Eastern Churches, p. 40).

The Remnant, looking to the history of question, has never said Francis is not the Pope, but rather has insisted to the contrary, publishing major pieces against sedevacantism. The issue is whether Francis can be called to account by some body of hierarchs for his numerous words and deeds causing scandal and harm to the Church, including---just two of dozens of shocking examples---his announced intention to celebrate the Reformation in a joint liturgy with fake Lutheran bishops and his obvious determination to overturn the teaching of Benedict XVI and John Paul II on the impossibility of admitting public adulterers to Holy Communion.

Now for an apt historical example of what the The Remnant is talking about. The so-called "imperfect council" of the sort referenced by both Suarez and Bellarmine in their own ways was precisely the remedy threatened against John XXII on account of his false teaching denying the immediacy of the beatific vision and holding that no one will see God until the Final Judgment. Faced with furious public opposition to his erring sermons on the subject, the Pope convened a commission which told him his teaching was in error, but not until he was on his deathbed did he retract the error in the presence of the cardinals, dying the next day. (Cf. Eric John, The Popes, p. 253).

If Mr. Médaille had been around back then, he would have put pen to parchment to denounce the "schismatics" who opposed John XXII's false teaching to good effect for the Church and the papacy.

Again, this subject deserves more than booing and hissing.

"Prescinding from the comment on Barnhardt,..." Really? That's a very interesting comment. And very telling.

Not really, John. I don't care to call people crackpots if in fact they are sane, and I have no reason to doubt her sanity. It seems to me, however, that if you are going to throw that word around, it might well apply to some of Francis's exceedingly strange sayings and doings, the likes of which we have never seen from any other Pope.

I presume you meant "don't care." Very commendable. How do you feel about calling them "tools of Satan"?

I am not sure what you are talking about, but I am not interested in an endless debate over Barnhardt's rhetoric while you duck the merits of the issue she tried, however crudely, to address. You may have refused to see it, but John Rao is right to write and publish his view that this is the worst pontificate in Church history. Or is he a crackpot too?

I have not the slightest problem with people taking issue with any bishop, up to and including the bishop of Rome. Have at it. Clamor like champions; you'll get no objection from me.

I do have an objection to a call for schism. As a lawyer, you might want to check the code of Canon Law, 1364.

I do find it interesting that you feel uncomfortable with making a judgment of "crackpot", but voice no objection to calling someone a "tool of Satan." I would have thought that only one of those judgments falls within human competence.

But I do wish to be sure that I don't misstate your position, so let me ask you straight up: Do you think Ann Barnhardt is a typical representative of typical American Traditionalist sentiments and attitudes.

" As a lawyer, you might want to check the code of Canon Law, 1364."

As someone who is apparently unfamiliar with this subject, you might want to check the common opinion of theologians, including Suarez, on the possibility of a Pope whose actions are schismatic and what to do about it. You have Barnhardt's position exactly backwards.

And if traditionalists can clamor like champions in protest of a Pope, what happens to your "private judgment" argument? What exactly can they clamor about? Your position seems incoherent.

I think you know full well: the call for schism; the lack of charity. I'll let others judge whether that is a "coherent" concern.

But I am still interested in your position: Is Ann Barnhardt a valid representative of typical Traditionalist opinion and sentiment?

And for the record, Suarez's opinion is "No one in the Church has the right to judge or depose the Pope."

But nice try.

Once again you reveal your lack of familiarity with the subject. Suarez says the "imperfect council" does not judge or depose the Pope, but rather declares that he has judged himself, thus providing certainty to the Church.

Barnhardt would agree that no one can depose the Pope, but both Suarez and Bellarmine opine that he can be declared to have been deposed by the sentence of Christ himself.

Try reading the pertinent material before you write articles attacking a position you do not really understand. You could start with the First Things piece "Can a Pope be a heretic?" or Aidan Nichols' book which speaks of the common theological opinion that even the Pope can become a schismatic and thus become a danger to the Church from which the Church would have to protect itself.

As I said, you can find any opinion you like, on any side of the question. Can you refer me to a magisterial statement that authorizes this? A passage in Canon Law, perhaps?

Has there ever been a heretic or schismatic, in all of Church history, that didn't make the claim, "I'm not the schismatic! The Pope is!"? All the schismatics disagree with each other on each and every point; this is the one sentiment that binds them all together.

But did I get your take on Ann Barnhardt correctly?

Ah, so you admit the opinion is permissible in the Church. That would render your attack on Barnhardt nothing more than a criticism of her rhetoric, which I do not defend. So that's that.

And no, John, you cannot "find any opinion you like on any side of the question" that the Church would view as permissible. But this opinion, expressed by a doctor of the Church and found in standard theological manuals, is indeed permissible and was presented as such even by First Things.

Give it up, John. You don't know what you are talking about.

Over and out.

A call for a rump group of bishops ("Those who are still Orthodox" ) to depose a pope has NO precedent, and no canonical support. I was wrong: there are things that even a canon lawyer wouldn't touch, and this is one of them.

And further, who would judge who is an "Orthodox bishop" and how many would you need to depose the pope?

Why, we are right back at....wait for it.....

PRIVATE INTERPRETATION!

Take it up with Robert Bellarmine, Suarez and the common theological opinion found in manuals on the subject and stop trying to pretend this is just some crazy traditionalist idea. Enough, already.

The call for a rump group of bishops to depose the pope is not "permissible opinion"; it is schism. You know as well as I do that there are no bishops who want such an "imperfect ecumenical council"; but this is what you are passing off as a "traditionalist" idea. The problem is, that people are all to likely to agree with you and judge the Traditionalist movement accordingly.

You aimed at wounding the Church, and you only hurt yourself.

This is just pointless posturing. Do some reading on the subject. Try the piece by the U of Steuvbenville theology prof over at First Things, who writes this about Saint Robert Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church:

"Instead, Bellarmine adopts the position that Suarez rejected: the pope loses his office immediately by committing the sin of formal heresy, because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church. *It’s true that the bishops could still get together and make a declaration that God had deposed the pope, but their declaration would not be a judgment in any real sense, only an acknowledgement of what God had already done. (De Romano Pontifice 2.30)*

This is just what Barnhard is talking about. By the way, I am not calling for any such theoretical council, as she does--- being within her rights to do so, following the suggestion of Bellarmine and Suarez.

But I am calling for members of the upper hierarchy to start saying publicly what they are saying privately, including the curial official who told Edward Pentin that this Pope is a threat to the integrity of the Magisterium. Divine revelation itself tells us that a wayward Pope must be resisted, as does Saint Thomas.

Of course, as the same piece notes, "Theologians are divided as to whether the pope could ever be a formal heretic...There were always some people who believed that God would simply not allow the pope to become a formal heretic, because it would be against Christ’s promises to Peter. *But from the twelfth century onwards, a lot of Catholic theologians didn’t.*

I really have to go now. I am happy to give you the last word.

Just to add something, Suarez and Bellarmine seem a bit extreme to me on this issue compared with Banez, Gonet, and the Carmelites of Salamanca, who are much more solid and have no qualms about saying that the Pope can be deposed. See also Cajetan in opusc. de authorit. Papae, 20-26, and Melchor Cano, de locis, lib. 6, cap. 8. See Gratian's Decretals, Si Papa, 40 and the bit about Pope Symmachus. Also the common belief about Pope Marcellinus and the Roman clergy. It is simply untrue that she is tending towards schism or fomenting schism simply by the fact that she wants the Pope to be deposed for heresy, unless there is recent stuff that I don't know about. But it has not been cited, and it seems undefinable, although I am not a theologian. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to defend her. You might make the argument that an unjust attempt at deposition is schismatic. But that is not what Medaille is arguing.

Interesting stuff. Catholics who really understand this question, instead of posturing, waving the papal flag, and prattling on about "schism," know that some of the greatest theologians in Church history have pondered extensively on how the Church could protect itself from a wayward, destructive and indeed schismatic (Suarez) Pope---as if they could see a situation like this one coming some day.

The idea of the Pope as unassailable dictator, who can do whatever he pleases without being stopped by his hierarchical subordinates, is precisely the Protestant caricature that Bellarmine addressed.

I wouldn't defend Barnhardt's rhetorical choices either. But I view her piece more as a cri de coeur than a serious proposal. I hardly think she believes any such "imperfect council" could be convoked, but she does, rightly enough, say that it would be the only remedy as we laity can do nothing beyond raising objections.

On the other hand, if a group of cardinals merely held a press conference and declared their grave concern over the direction of this pontificate, setting forth few dozen examples of Francis's outrageous statements and gestures, which have earned him the world's endless applause, that might be enough to turn the ship around.

I share your conclusion, which has been obscured by all the back-and-forth here: "It is simply untrue that she is tending towards schism or fomenting schism simply by the fact that she wants the Pope to be deposed for heresy..." Exactly so.
The theologians considering this case have hypothesized that it would be the Pope who is fomenting schism, not his opposition.

And that, by the way, is exactly what Ross Douthat of the New York Times said Francis is doing. The same analysis is found in The Atlantic, The Spectator, catholic.org and other decidedly non-traditionalist sources.

I find it odd that so much attention is being devoted to a single blog post on the Remnant website when even commentators of the stature of Ross Douthat suggest that Francis is threatening the common good of the ecclesial commonwealth. As Douthat put it, Francis's sustained attack on the teaching of his own predecessors respecting the divorced and "remarried," if it ripens into any form of permission for public adulterers to receive Holy Communion, "wouldn’t just provoke conservative grumbling; it would threaten outright schism."

On April 8, when the post-synodal apostolic exhortation is issued, and the probable bomb detonates, it should be clear to more and more members of the faithful that this unique historical situation will make the false teaching of John XXII and the posthumous condemnation of Honorius for aiding and abetting heresy look trivial by comparison, even though they convulsed the Church at the time.

There is no doubt Barnhardt could have stated her case in a sober manner, reflecting the sober theological reflections she has in view. But this crisis is about much more than one blogger's choice of words in a blog post, for goodness sake.

How many bishops called for the excommunication of John XXII ? His controversial sermon was given in 1332 - he unsaid the opinion that caused the controversy on December 3 1334, dying the next day.

The strength of the opposition to him came from the Franciscan Spirituals, who were not pleased by his earlier revocation of the Bull "Exiit qui seminat", promulgated by Nicholas III in 1279. John had burned 4 of them in 1318, so their antagonism is understandable. Making Michael of Cesena an anti-pope was not exactly a good idea either. And enlisting Louis of Bavaria against the Pope was even more stupid.

Remonstrating with the Pope is one thing - grouping together to call for papal acts (such as AL is) to be withdrawn, is something else again. And the deluge of insults and accusations directed at the Holy Father goes a very long way to deprive the complaints of his Catholic critics of any moral legitimacy or credibility.

What will they do if he is investigated by the cardinals, and is declared to be legitimate Pope ? Will they elect an anti-pope ? Suppose they do, and find him too to be unsatisfactory - will they make and unmake Popes time after time until they find one to their liking ? To lean on the Pope until he withdraws what one disapproves of is a very bad idea: it inverts the obedience Catholics owe to the Pope; it imports a Protestant principle into Catholic ecclesiology; it lessens the authority and freedom of the Pope as teacher and ruler; it makes Catholic teaching depend on the obedience of those to whom it is taught; it is inconsistent, because the accusations against the alleged faults of Pope Francis are equally applicable to many of the acts of his recent predecessors. Teaching is not the function of the laity - it belongs to the Bishops. To rule in the Church is not for the laity, nor have we any right to meddle in such things - for that function also belongs to the Bishops.

What has been conspicuously lacking in Catholic criticisms of Pope Francis is charity, docility, obedience, humility, kindness, long-suffering, graciousness, and, in particular, prayer for the Pope. Bitter zeal, ignorance, uncharity, and other bad attitudes that are opposed to the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit do nothing to build up the Church, or to promote brotherly love - a love that must always include the Pope.

Mrs. Barnhardt's article is quite different from the First Things article, and that is why almost everyone reads it so. That is probably why you seem to be able to defend, rightly, a serious, devout, and scholarly engagement of the topic-- like the First Things' article, but haven't really attempted to defend Mrs. Barnhardt's words.

Something like, "Yes, Dr. Medaille, her article was impious, but I must say that the Pope's actions call for a clear look at Suarez, Bellarmine, etc., and I point you towards 'First Things' for just such a look."

If one may, while incisive to be sure, Barnhardt's diagnosis (if arguably not her solution to it) is surely within the parameter of legitimate Catholic thought.
*
As regards legitimate concerns about schism & charity, it seems also fair to note this: that just as people who believed they were married have been informed by ecclesial authority they were mistaken, so might insufficient grasp of far less weight than a Sacrament render it invalid, such as a papal resignation.
*
To suspect or hold that Benedict's resignation was invalid - even if he thinks otherwise, like those folk who thought they were married but weren't - is in any event a practical point free for any Catholic to embrace sans violation of any principle of the Faith or discipline.
*
And if said resignation was in fact invalid, t'would also address Mr. Medaille's legitimate concerns, not to say much else; & perhaps provide the solution to Miss Barnhardt's diagnosis, in anticipation of a future Pope ruling such, & thus rendering null all the acts of a faux successor.

Answered above.

Ann Barnhardt is hardly typical. Her opinion on the calling of a council to declare that Francis has deposed himself, however, merely invokes the teaching of Bellarmine and Suarez, intelligently discussed over at First Things: http://www.crisismagazine.c....

I defend her right to espouse that view, not her choice of words.

"Do you think Ann Barnhardt is a typical representative of typical American Traditionalist sentiments and attitudes."

Not rhetorically. In substance, her blog post does nothing more than invoke the acceptable opinions of Suarez and Bellarmine on the convoking of a council to deal with a wayward Pope---opinions with which you seem to be unfamiliar.

So then, I would be correct if I said, "In the opinion of Chris Ferrara, Ann Barnhardt fairly represents the opinions of a majority, or at least a significant minority, of American Catholic Traditionalists, in substance if not always in rhetoric." Did I state that correctly? But this does seem to concede that there is at least a problem in the rhetoric, no?

As for opinions of the canonists, you can certainly find them on all sides of any issue you care to name. A canonist, after all, is just a canon lawyer, and their opinions are, at best, pious opinion and not Church teaching, and at worst, the opinion they were paid to have, since they were frequently in the service of some prince or prelate with an ax to grind. As we certainly can't blame the lawyers for trying to build up their practices.

But you cannot find within the magisterium of the Catholic Church a mechanism to remove a pope, and certainly not the "mechanism" of a rump group of bishops, even assuming such bishops exist. Of that, I see little evidence, and certainly none in this article.

Saint Robert Bellarmine is a doctor the Church, not a mere "canonist." The opinion he expresses is that a council could be called to declare the self-deposition of a Pope on account of heresy. This is not just the opinion of a "canonist" but rather is found in standard theological manuals that treat of this possibility. It is a perfectly acceptable view on what to do in the case of a wayward Pope, as you would know if you were actually familiar with the topic on which you have written.

This has become a dry well. I have said enough.

there is no Church teaching on deposing a Pope. None. Zip. The opinions of theologians do not constitute "Church teaching." If it did, the Church would believe anything and everything. And even if there were, there would be no teaching allowing a rump group of bishops to depose a Pope. That would be schism.

Now, if you can find authorization in Canon Law, or the Catechism, or a document of similar authority, I will happily repent of obstinate opinion and withdraw the article.

I doubt that will be necessary.

Although, I think you can find authoritative support for your opinion among the followers of Luther, Calvin, and King Henry, eighth of that name.

I have no idea what you mean by an "approved theologian." Theologians spend most of their time disagreeing with each other. And speaking as a theologian, my job is not to get "approved," but to pass on what I have received. So I repeat: if you can find any of your doctrines in Church teaching, I will repent and pass it on. But so far, no one can show me these remarkable documents.

As for John XXII, what are talking about? Are you asserting that his "removal" by the Emperor was valid, and that Nicholas V was anything but an anti-pope?

After reading this half-year strung out argument, it is clear to me that Chris Ferarra is using dialectic and astutely referring to concrete resources, while John Medaille is arguing with rhetoric. And in the style of the recently terminated Mark Shea, Medaille is resorting to the tactic of "deny and discredit." This tactic is woven throughout the conversation. Discredit Barnhardt, discredit Ferarra, discredit the Traditionalists. Deny what they are telling him, deny to look at the resources he's being pointed to, deny the severity of the problem.
It is this kind of comfort in a horrible situation, this kind of normalcy bias, this kind of Stockholm Syndrome, and this kind of apathy towards a real problem that has helped the Church to disintegrate for several generations. At best, Medaille is looking to play "noble defeat," and at worst, he doesn't care about the abuse in the Church. This apathy is the real sin against charity. As people struggle to find the best way to worship God, you effectively say "to hell with those losers! Look at how they sequester themselves like a bunch of weird Pentacostals!"
Traditionalism gets suppressed, and Medaille says "who cares?"

"...think her writing has echoes of Flannery O'Connor..."

I get it: you've been setting up,an April Fool's joke and this is the punchline. Am I right?

I sincerely hope I am...

Chris: http://www.americanthinker....

Have a look at this. It is the first article I came across in a random search just now, so I haven't carefully picked out something particularly bizarre.

You're telling me that a woman who (a) thinks that mainstream Islam thinks that necrophilia is a good thing and (b) did this to the guy in the audience, is perfectly and utterly sane? If so, then she's far nastier than I can comprehend.

I thought I had already seen the depths she could plumb. This link indicates I had not.

I'm appalled.

Re: Calling Ms. Barnhardt insane, crackpot or nuts

"And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is become mad". Mark 3:21

In the Holy Bible, in both secular and church histories of Catholicism and in the lives of the Saints we read that prophets, Doctors of the Church, Holy men and women and even Our Lord and Savior Himself are called mad.

Indeed, IMO, the world will view any follower of Jesus Christ as mad.

Ms. Barnhardt has made a radical conversion to the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Faith which has entailed very great sacrifices on her part. Simply dismissing her as a nut is unjust, uncharitable and unwise.

God bless

Richard W Comerford