Karl Keating on the Latest Insanity Emerging from the Greatest Catholics of All Time

Karl Keating on the Latest Insanity Emerging from the Greatest Catholics of All Time August 20, 2014

He writes:


In the current issue of “The Remnant” there is another article that never should have seen print. It is an article that will lead many readers into confusion and may lead some right out of the Church.

And it’s an article that suggests that “The Remnant” is heading over a cliff.

The article is titled “In a Papal ‘Diarchy’ Which Half Is Infallible?” The writer is Robert J. Siscoe. His topic is a study by Stefano Violi, a professor of canon law, who argues that Pope Benedict did not intend to renounce the whole papal office but only its administrative aspects. Benedict’s intent “was essentially to split the papacy in two, thereby transforming the papal monarchy into a papal diarchy.”

Siscoe quotes Italian journalist Vittorio Messori’s take on Violi’s argument: “Benedict did not intend to renounce the munus petrinus, or the office, or the duties. . . . The Pope intended to renounce only the ministerium, which is the exercise and concrete administration of that office.”

After all, Benedict explained that he was tired and no longer felt he had the strength to fulfill his papal duties well.

Siscoe says that, if Violi “is correct, Pope Benedict did not intend to fully renounce the papal office, but only a portion of the exercise thereof. . . . This novel act of Pope Benedict would explain why he has retained the papal coat of arms, continues to wear the white cassock, and, rather than returning to his pre-papal name Cardinal Ratzinger, has chosen the title ‘His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus.'”

Siscoe then quotes another Italian journalist, Antonio Socci, who says: “Ratzinger dresses like a pope because ‘he is’ pope.”

The consequence of all this, speculates Siscoe, is that Benedict “retains the charism of infallibility.” Such a charism can’t be divided between two men. Thus, if Benedict still has it, Francis doesn’t have it. This allows Siscoe and his colleagues at “The Remnant” to get around what for them has been an awkward situation: the recent canonizations.

Siscoe asks, “How could God have permitted the canonization of John XXIII and John Paul II (whose public sins against the First Commandment are too many to list) when so many theologians have held that the canonization of saints is protected by infallibility?”

Not to worry, folks. If Francis doesn’t have the charism of infallibility, one can argue that his canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II didn’t “take.” They aren’t to be counted as saints but simply as two dead popes.

Of course, there are difficulties with the theory that “The Remnant” is pushing:

1. No theologian ever asserted that the papal office could be cut in two in this way.

2. No cardinal in the conclave understood himself to be giving only half the papal office to Francis.

3. If Benedict felt too tired to perform administrative duties and wanted to relieve himself of them and only of them, the logical thing would have been for him to devolve more of those duties onto the curia–which is precisely what the curia is for. There was no need for a “half pope.”

4. Benedict attended the canonization ceremony. He clearly endorsed what Francis was doing. He must have known that Francis had the charism of infallibility.

5. If the charism of infallibility lies with Benedict, what happens when he dies? If Francis doesn’t have the charism now, he won’t inherit it automatically on Benedict’s death. Will there have to be another conclave, to hand over to him (or to some other cardinal) the powers that Benedict retained?

The position argued by Siscoe and endorsed by “The Remnant” is madness. The chief reason it’s being pushed is that the staff members of that newspaper didn’t and don’t approve of John Paul II, against whom they wrote for years.

Their antipathy to that pope is leading them into theological nonsense, and it will lead some of their readers, and perhaps some of them, into further error.

"You didn't say Ben's ideas where in opposition to Jesus.You said 1) You said Ben ..."

“Why Call It Progress?”
""Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me ..."

“Why Call It Progress?”
"...so, you think Ben is an enemy of the Church (strong assertion there) but not ..."

“Why Call It Progress?”
"I input "Nazi belt buckle" into Google and I'm attaching the first search result that ..."

“Why Call It Progress?”

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Brian O.

    That and the minor sticking point that the charism of infallibility doesn’t reside in a person but the office. What an embarrassing article.

  • ivan_the_mad

    “John Paul II (whose public sins against the First Commandment are too many to list)”

    What a horrid calumny. But I have no doubt that St. John Paul II is even now praying with great fervor for Siscoe et al. These sorts of articles and assertions always remind me of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on heresy: “The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal …”

    • JJG

      The reason they despise Pope St. John Paul the Great is that he excommunicated Abp. Lefevbre and the bishops he consecrated. (He had little choice, this act in essence created an alternative hierarchy for traditionalist Catholics.) The reason they despise Pope St. John XXIII is that he opened the Second Vatican Council, which in their minds is the locus of all evil. Everything else is trumped-up window dressing to justify these hatreds. (Oh, and my own admiration for JP2, I am reliably informed has nothing to do with his objective accomplishments or the example of patient suffering he exhibited in the later years of his life; no, it’s because I’ve been mesmerized by the “cult of personality” surrounding him. Isn’t it fascinating how people who have never met me have such profound insight into my innermost thoughts? Clearly they are all blessed with Padre Pio’s gifts.)
      The tradical progression goes like this:
      I’m Catholic.
      I’m more Catholic than the Pope.
      The Pope’s not Catholic.
      The Pope’s not the Pope.
      I’m the Pope.
      I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine at what point along this spectrum _The_Remnant_ finds itself.

      • Matthew

        Much of the dislike / disdain for JP2 has little to do with the Lefebvre issue. Most of it circles around the two pan-world religion meetings at Assisi, the first of which unfornuately allowed the placing of pagan idols on Catholic altars. The other issue is the reverence (kissing) of the Koran that JP2 did when he visited Turkey. This is why the article references violations of the FIrst Commandment.
        Please note, for the record, I do believe JP2 to be a saint.

        • JJG

          A careful examination of what occurred at Assisi reveal those criticisms to be baseless, but the incident served as yet another club with which to beat a man, who happened to be the Vicar of Christ, whom certain Trads had already decided was unworthy of their respect and obedience. The accusation of sin against the First Commandment amounts to self-serving rash judgment, which the Catechism reminds us in #2478, should be avoided, and indeed enjoins us to “be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way”.

          Regarding the kissing of the Quran, _Nostra_aetate_ states, at #3: “The Church also has a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they worship Jesus as a prophet, his virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds, and fasting. Over the centuries many quarrels and dissentions have arisen between Christians and Moslems. The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice, and moral values.”

          IOW, kissing the Quran is consonant with acknowledging that Islam is one of the three great Abrahamic faiths, whose holy book contains _some_ truths to which all Christians of good will can assent. Of course it contains error as well, but then, from the Christian point of view, so does Judaism, e.g., failure to understand the Godhead as a Trinity of Persons. And at least the Quran is devoid of blasphemies against our Lord and our Lady, such as may be found in the Talmud.

          I assume certain Trads would dismiss this analysis out of hand, however, since the two sources I’ve cited are products of the post-Conciliar Church, which in their view has embraced heresy. I, however, do not claim to be more Catholic than Pope St. John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Popes John Paul I and II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis, to all of whom obedience is generally owed.

          I’m sure Holy Mother Church will be gratified to learn that you have deigned to accede to Her infallible judgment regarding the sanctity of Pope St. John Paul II.

      • Tom Leith

        I’m stealing this.

      • wlinden

        He thought he saw an argument that proved he was the Pope.
        He looked again, and saw it was a bar of mottled soap.
        “A fact so dread,” he faintly said, “extinguishes all hope”

  • wlinden

    But what is the OFFICIAL CATHOLIC POSITION on this? Can’t you answer such a simple question?

    • David Naas

      I thought we all knew, the OFFICIAL CATHOLIC POSITION on this is either magenta or vermillion. 🙂

      • Rebecca Fuentes

        No, it’s cardinal red, of course.

  • Tom Leith

    Heading over a cliff? It may be that this ridiculous speculation is the rudder hanging up on the last rock, but The Remnant was heading over a cliff at its founding, and hasn’t changed course.

    To ask “what is the OFFICIAL CATHOLIC POSITION on this?” betrays utter misunderstanding of what the Church is.

    • Heather

      Tom, I’m pretty sure the “OFFICIAL CATHOLIC POSITION” comment was tongue-in-cheek, referring to Mark’s recent Register article addressing the curious outrage expressed by certain people that there is not an “Official Catholic Position” on every possible issue (while simultaneously also being outraged that the Catholic Church wants to micromanage every facet of everyone’s life).

  • Leonard Nugent

    I agree with you however the way that Benedict assumed his new role surprised me. It would have been best if he took a franciscan habit and moved back to Germany. The way he resigned opened the door to this confusion

    • Benjamin2.0

      I prefer to think that people’s intent to be confused opened the door to the confusion. Benedict has done nothing to positively endorse this nonsense. It’s entirely a fabrication of the willfully deluded. Therefore, Benedict could’ve renounced his papal name, called himself Sally, and moved to Venus. We’d then be hearing about Sally the Space Half-Pope.

    • IRVCath

      The man has isolated himself in large part. What do you want to do, put him in solitary?

    • jroberts548

      Was he a Franciscan before the election? Why would he take a Franciscan habit?

    • WesleyD

      From everything we have seen since his resignation, I think that
      Benedict intended to avoid all public appearances whatsoever, and just
      spend his remaining days in prayer. Moreover, a quick look at European
      history will show why he was prudent to choose to live in Vatican City:
      by doing so, he gave his successor complete control over the pope
      emeritus. Francis, as monarch of Vatican City, would be within his
      rights to have Benedict executed if he so chose! (Whereas if Benedict
      moved out of Vatican City, he could become a pawn for whoever ruled his
      new home.) But Francis has other ideas, and has deliberately asked
      Benedict to attend important events, such as the canonizations. Would
      you prefer that Benedict refuse these requests from Pope Francis? Isn’t
      obeying his successor by definition what a former
      pope should do?

  • Imrahil

    That is, of course, utter nonsense.

    As for canonizations, I’ll advise to calm down, and remember three things:

    1. Being holy does not mean being beyond criticism.

    2. There is a distinction between objective acts and subjective intentions, there is also a distinction between doing a sin and being silent when someone else does it (the latter can be permissible by prudence), and there is the possibility of misunderstandings. For personal holiness, what is important is the subjective intention, and are acts of a person only as intended by the same.

    3. The infallible part of a canonization is according to the general opinion of the theologians (yeah I should bring a quote for that but cannot) that the person canonized is in Heaven. All else, such as that he does rightfully belong among the heroes of Faith who are singled out even among the saints in heaven for veneration by the faithful, that the canonization should have taken place at all, is, while obviously intended by a canonization (I daresay), fallible.

    Sts. Popes John XXIII and John Paul II, pray for us.

    • WesleyD

      I agree with your point # 3. One can make a persuasive theological argument that certain things associated with a saint (for example, the content of their writings, or their claim to have received visions) deserve a stronger presumption of truth if they are canonized. However, even those theologians who completely agree with this argument admit that such a claim has never been taught infallibly by the Church. So the canonization of John Paul II does not mean every action he took as pope was necessarily wise (any more than Thomas Aquinas’ canonization means that he was correct in what he wrote about the Immaculate Conception).

  • Heather

    Would you mind giving a link back to Mr. Keating’s piece? You usually link quoted articles to their original context and I’m just curious where this originally appeared.

    • chezami

      It was on Facebook and a lot of my readers aren’t on FB, so I didn’t bother with a link.

      • Heather

        Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

  • Imrahil

    Ah yes, in continuing to use the white cassock (which, in a cassock, is not specially signifying the Papacy to begin with*) and the Style “His Holiness”**, the Pope is merely following the established practice for retired people. A retired parson continues to be “Mr. Parson” (in Germany, where the address as Father never existed), a retired king continues to be His Majesty, a retired President continues to be “Mr. President”.

    In fact, all accessories actually signifying jurisdiction, such as the ring, the ferula, (I guess) the mozetta or even the pellegrina, the Pope emeritus does not use.

    *Papal colors, in vestments, are red and perhaps gold (cardinals wear red by Papal favor). The white color now associated to the Papacy is originally the monastic color of the Dominicans (and Premonstratians), which Pope St. Pius V OP chose to wear out of modesty. Also, white serves in the South as a cassock against heat for any cleric whosoever.

    ** I personally think, though, that the affectionate “Holy Father” (which is not official anyway) is applicable to the Pope only.

  • David J. White

    Siscoe quotes Italian journalist Vittorio Messori’s take on Violi’s
    argument: “Benedict did not intend to renounce the munus petrinus, or
    the office, or the duties. .

    “munus petrinum”. One would think that self-styled “traditionalists” would take care not to make basic errors in Latin that would cause me to dock a point from a first-semester Latin student.

    • Petey

      (munus is neuter)

      • Petey

        sorry, i misread, i’m going to hand in my pedant card now …


    INFALLIBILITY!!!! I do not know a reputable theologian who believes in the infallibility defined at Vatican I — that the pope is “infallible in himself and not with the consensus of the Church.” Kaiser

    • chezami

      Translation: If you believe in the teaching of the Church on papal infallibility, you are not reputable in the eyes of Robert Blair Kaiser. An interesting statement about your subjective views, but so what?

    • Andy, Bad Person

      You see this as a problem with Vatican I. I see it as a problem with “reputable theologians.”

    • WesleyD

      I agree with Andy and Mark. Also, you put quotation marks around something that is quite different than what Vatican I defined. Vatican I never referred to the pope as “infallible” — because the bishops worried that this might be misunderstood. Instead, they said that the pope’s definitions are irreformable, because he exercises the Church’s infallible teaching authority [magisterium] when he issues definitive teachings. Sadly, even this was misunderstood, over and over.

  • Recently, I’ve encountered several friends who are being taken in by this nonsense. They have such terror that we are in the last days, they’ve adopted a Pharisaical attitude towards salvation and are somehow trying to be obedient without authority. Their reason has departed. All I know to do is pray for them and avoid arguments. Please do pray for those being led astray.

    • Dan C

      Their reason has departed.

      Why? What was the prompt? This whole piece I have suspicions about but am afraid to say why.

      • There are Catholics who are so afraid that we are in the end times, they are easy prey for sedevacantists. Their fears of the “great tribulation” and that they will not be faithful are the prompts.

        Sedevacantists proof text encyclicals and accept “prophecies” that speak of “the last pope” and much other silliness. They actively proselytize Catholics. A few of my friends have accepted the “prophecies” as truth. They teeter on the edge of believing that St. John XXIII and successive popes are anti-popes. When I tell them there must be a real pope in order to have an anti-pope, people who, a year or two ago, were irritated because St. JPII suggested the luminous mysteries be added to the rosary are now convinced that such suggestions are proof that he was an anti-pope. They have similar explanations about the other popes.

        Most of the people I know personally, just want to be faithful to Christ. Their catechesis is poor. They see themselves as simple people and don’t read much except hagiography as depicted in the 19th and early 20th century. They’re romantics: The Latin Mass is faithful, praying in Latin is faithful, romantic piety is faithful. But more and more, they believe that the Church is not faithful even when I explain that their position means the Holy Spirit has failed. That is why I say, their reason has departed.

        (Drusilla Barron, http://lovedasif.com)

        • Dan C

          I think that poor catechesis (ignorance) is so often someone’s explanation for…name it: contraception/sedevacantism/being a birther. I find it too facile a suggestion anymore.

          I suggest there is something dark in these folks minds that lend to this- because, quite frankly, the Father Elijah/end times are coming/ and everyone else is going to hell crowd is not a joyful crowd. And seeks somehow some “comeuppance” desired.

          I do not get it.

          • Perhaps you’re right. Still, I pray for them.

          • I suggest there is something dark in these folks minds that lend to this

            They have not the perfect love that casteth out fear.

            • Dan C

              Fear is so prevalent, then, sadly.

          • Steven Allen

            Yeah, not like the great catachesis you get in your typical parish these days. Poor Catachesis does not lead to traditionalism, it leads to ecumenical prayer meetings, the majority of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence, the overwhelming majority of Catholic youth accepting of homosexual lifestyles, of priests giving communion to Nancy Pelosi, and other notorious, public sinners. It leads to Altar Girls, massive defections from the faith, the growth of protestantism, universalism, tne belief that those who wish to remain faithful to tradition are somehow not in some kind of gnostic “full communion” with Rome. Stop worrying about the pathology of the Right Wing, and start worring about the unabated auto demolition of the Church by her princes.

            • Dan C

              The Right Wing is destroying the Church, honey.

  • As a purely intellectual exercise, on the level of a dorm-room bull session, this is actually pretty fun.

    In any other context, it is pure poison.

    • Dan C

      Please explain how this is fun in a dorm room. I confess to many “fix the world” discussions, but “who is the pope?” is…odd. At least to me. Most of my brilliant world fixes make so much less sense the next morning.

      • In the “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” way, or the “Do all Quentin Tarantino’s films happen in the same universe?” way. Totally fun.

        • Dan C

          His films don’t happen in the same universe?

          • Well, people have noticed cross-over, like the Vega bros in both Reservoir Dogs and in Pulp Fiction. Those are obviously in the same “universe”. I suspect cross-references could pretty easily be found in Jackie Brown, too. I doubt Inglorious and Kill Bill(s) fit, but it’s fun to speculate about, even if you’re aware that it’s pretty pointless in the end.

        • Dan C

          Now that is cool.

        • Dan C

          I just do not know where this kind of thinking comes from. That’s all. It is so foreign and alien to me.

          I do not get sedevactism either. I have no respect for any logic that came up with that.

          • I get where it comes from. It comes from fear and a lack of faith in God that he’s still God and doesn’t require us to be his personal theological control freaks.

        • jroberts548

          “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin” isn’t a real question. It was made up by humanist critics of scholastics. It’s the opposite of a fun question. It’s how you mock people for asking theoretical questions.

          • Well, Dorothy Sayers said it was a real scholastic exercise. According to her, the scholastics were criticized for thinking it was an important question, when in fact it was a schoolboy’s philosophical exercise designed to test their understanding of the nature of angelic beings, which can have location but not extension in space.

            Apparently, what’s really fun is arguing about the genuine provenance of the question. 😉

            • ivan_the_mad

              I’m posting a link to Sayers’ essay and quoting the relevant paragraph for Dan C’s (and others’) enjoyment:

              “A glib speaker in the Brains Trust once entertained his audience (and reduced the late Charles Williams to helpless rage by asserting that in the Middle Ages it was a matter of faith to know how many archangels could dance on the point of a needle. I need not say, I hope, that it never was a ‘matter of faith’; it was simply a debating exercise, whose set subject was the nature of angelic substance: were angels material, and if so, did they occupy space? The answer usually adjudged correct is, I believe, that angels are pure intelligences; not material, but limited, so that they may have location in space but not extension. An analogy might be drawn from human thought, which is similarly non-material and similarly limited. Thus, if your thought is concentrated upon one thing–say, the point of a needle–it is located there in the sense that it is not elsewhere; but although it is ‘there,’ it occupies no space there, and there is nothing to prevent an infinite number of different people’s thoughts being concentrated upon the same needle-point at the same time. The proper subject of the argument is thus seen to be the distinction between location and extension in space; the matter on which the argument is exercised happens to be the nature of angels (although, as we have seen, it might equally well have been something else; the practical lesson to be drawn from the argument is not to use words like ‘there’ in a loose and unscientific way, without specifying whether you mean ‘located there’ or ‘occupying space there.'”

              • Excellent! A thousand upvotes to you, sir.

      • The idea that a Pope could relinquish some parts of the office–not just delegating, but relinquishing them to a new Pope–while retaining others is probably mad…but fascinating, and leads to all sorts of other questions, most of which get even more probably mad.

        Maybe it takes an armchair-theologian lawyer, or some similar brand of weirdo, to see any fun in imagining possible scenarios and paradoxes of a “papal diarchy”.

  • Having been deep into the traditionalist movement for several years, I can tell you that this movement is all about being right and showing how wrong the “Vatican II” Church is. Traditionalists are Catholic fundamentalists, and fundamentalists can never admit even to themselves that they just might be wrong. It is always the other guy who is wrong, and therefore since the other guy is always wrong, you are always justified in attacking and destroying those who disagree with you. This is the way you serve God.

    With Catholic traditionalists, no one is safe from their attack, not even the Vicar of Christ. And now they are twisting themselves into pretzels to prove that Pope Francis is not pope.

    There is little doubt in my mind that we are headed for a major schism.

    • Imrahil


      “The modern habit of saying ‘This is my opinion, but I may be wrong’ is
      entirely irrational. If I say that it may be wrong, I say that is not my

      from our beloved Chesterton.

      “Fundamentalist”, as commonly used (there was once a specific meaning of this word reflecting the problems of Protestantism because of being stripped from Tradition and Magisterium) means that you are too much something. But you cannot be too much Catholic!

      (You can, of course, be a Catholic tainted with false opinions, vices or unhelpful behavior. But you cannot be too much Catholic.)

      That said, I’ve encountered SSPX adherents more than once praying for the Pope since Pope Francis’s election, and each time they prayed for Pope Francis.

      • A big part of being Catholic is accepting and being subject to the Vicar of Christ as Our Lord’s representative on earth. This is one of the main things separating us from Protestants and all others who call themselves Christian (there are many other points of separation, of course, but acceptance of papal authority is a big one).

        The SSPX may pray for the Pope, but Bishop Fellay has called Pope Francis a modernist. He said that we must accept Pope Francis “for now”, but that may change in the future. “Praying” for someone does not mean acceptance. I pray for a lot of people whose beliefs I do not accept. The SSPX has also stated that they are very glad they did not reconcile with Rome. So please don’t hold them up as any kind of example.

        As far as the term fundamentalist is concerned, it has come to mean anyone who is close minded and will not listen to anyone who disagrees with them. This term is used with all beliefs. I am sure you have heard of Islamic fundamentalists. Well, traditionalists are Catholic fundamentalists.

        • Steven Allen

          Pope Francis IS a modernist, pure and simple, but he is pope. I am sorry that you are so attached to the traditions of the diabolical disorientation in the Church. There is no way to be faithful to tradition, and be disobedient to pope Francis in any grave way. I have been a traditionalist since my conversion over 25 years ago. TradCats want only to hold the faith that St Thomas, St Augustine, St Pius X held, which in no way could be changed by anything pope Francis says. It is not possible. Either pope Francis is wrong, or the saints of the past were wrong, or we are misunderstaning pope Francis (this is the popular excuse for his scandalous words) which rock ths faithful to their core. If the “fruit” of Vatican II is of the Holy Ghost, he was not present at Trent or Vatican I. If you think the antics that go on in thousands of Catholic parishes across the world each Sunday morning are an organic development, and not a radical departure from the deposit of faith you are already long gone.

          • HornOrSilk

            The faith that St Thomas and St Augustine and St Pius X held is the faith which Pope Francis also holds. However, if you want to say “they differ from Pope Francis,” you should read the writings of the times of Aquinas. He was considered “modernist” and anti-Augustine in his era, and so those claiming to be traditionalists holding the faith said they followed Augustine over the modernist scholastics following Aristotle (even got condemnations in place for that very reason). You, like so many others, confuse your private interpretation as the interpretation which you judge the church instead of letting the church judge your private interpretation. If you find conflict, it’s because you have yet to understand the church’s teaching and only want a partial teaching.

    • iamlucky13

      You’re using terms inappropriately.

      Traditionalist Catholics are Catholics with a particularly deep attachment to traditions not generally held as important in current times.

      It is a term that applies to a large range of people from those who simply are disappointed in lack of reverence practiced in the liturgy in many parishes today to those who believe the Church should revert to the Tridentine Mass and the various rites and disciplines that accompanied it (sometimes called “rad trads” or “radical traditionalists,” although there’s really nothing radical about doing what we did before).

      The term Catholic traditionalists does not include sedevacantists, because the latter are not Catholic. The schism you are worried about already happened, and guess what: the traditionalists didn’t join the schism. Don’t try to push them away with divisive language when their reverence and faith really can contribute so much to the Church.

      I know several traditionalists, at least one of whom even calls herself a “rad trad,” and ALL of them recognize Pope Francis’s legitimacy. Even though they have concerns about many of his fallible actions, they still trust the Holy Spirit to protect his papacy away from heresy.

    • Raguel2

      If we are headed for a schism, it’s not because of “traditionalists,” it’s because we have a pope who thinks it’s perfectly fine to reopen issues that were suppose to be settled even under the reign of JPII.

      • chezami

        It’s guy’s fault over there that I want to leave!

        Way to take responsibility!

  • Mike

    Their rejection of Vatican II is quaint, their rejection of Vatican I is deadly.

  • Douglas E. Berry

    Darn. I was hoping that Benedict would move the papacy to Bavaria. Been to long since we had a good schism in the Church.

  • Bonnie Raymond

    Benedict is God?
    This sounds scarily like the US Supreme Court’s strange rewritings of history.

    • chezami

      Uh, what?

  • Ronald King

    Fear has no tolerance for ambiguity.