A Refutation Of Zechariah 4:06's "You're Not in Schism..."
Short answer: Yes, the author Zechariah 4:06is in schism. So is his source, Anne Barnhardt.
First, "Ius Canonicum" while sounding very "Canonical" is a book about Canon Law. It is the author's opinions on Canon Law, it is NOT Canon Law proper. A fancy Latin title does not make the work an official source of Church Law.
Second, Revs. Wernz and Vidal were not the "Highest Levels of The Church". Both authors were priests. In terms of clergy, they are the lowest levels of the Church.
Third, Anne Barnhardt, and the author, are misreading the passage she quotes.
"Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation." (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943).
Wernz and Vidal are referring to an un-named and undefined third party as "they", and then discount that group from being (direct quote) "among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation."
See what just happened?
Wernz and Vidal separate one group "they" from being (and I quote) "among the schismatics," and then the authors describe what those schismatics do: "...who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation."
The citation condemns both the author and Anne Barnhart as schismatics.
Gotcha! :D
Rev Ignatius Szal and De Lugo don't even cite Canon Law. Canon law 751 makes no provision for excusing schism on a based on personal doubt about the Papal Election.
Such a doubt is spurious since Pope Francis' own predecssor freely acknowledge the validity of Francis as Pope and recognizes him as such by name.
...and neither man is among "The Highest Levels Of The Church".
As for the even more obscure "De Lugo", he appears in three places usually...
1.) cited by sedevancantists insisting sedevacantism doesn't lead to schism.
2.) Benedict supporters/ Pope Francis haters.
3.) ...and here, a blog entry called "The Main Errors of Sectarian Sedevacantism" written by John S. Daly.
I would argue this is root source for Anne Barnhart's information since all three of her quotes sources appear verbatim and in order in the author's list of cited sources.
Very interestingly, the author takes just the OPPOSITE stance on the point of schism. He writes: --- Correct Catholic Position: Adhering to a false “pope” or to a false sect, as yet uncondemned by the Church and claiming to be Catholic, makes one a schismatic only if one realises that the sect in question is not the Catholic Church and that the “pope” in question is not the true head of the Catholic Church. Pertinacity is an just as much an essential element of schism as of heresy and must be demonstrated in each particular case. --- Citation: (Blog Romeward article: "The Main Errors of Sectarian Sedevacantism."
In the case of both the author and Anne Barnhardt, it is certain by now they DO "realize" Pope Francis is the Pope. They don't like the Pope so they simply pretend he is not the Pope at all. It's the same silly logic of a child turning up their face at a plate of asparagus.
Mother: "Eat your vegetables, Dear." Child: "Asparagus isn't a vegetable so I don't have to eat it!"
Except here the "children" play "make-pretend" about the following.
a.) Benedict XVI resigned on 28 February 2013. The "children" simply pretend his resignation was inalid.
b.) The Papal Conclave elected Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as Pope on March 13, 2013. The "children" pretend his election was invalid, proceeding from a.).
c.) Benedict, now self-described "Father Benedict" has repeatedly and unequivocally stated that he resigned and that he acknowledges Francis as the Pope. They simply pretend Benedict's own opinions on the end of his own Papacy and current leader of The Church are wrong.
But they do "realize" these things.
The theological concept of "invincible ignorance" can be stretched only so far.
Knowledge and belief are not the same. The former does not excuse a schismatic simply refusing to do the latter out of sheer stubborness or dislike for the conclusion, in this case that Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio is now Pope Francis, the lawful head of the Catholic Church.
Mr. Daly's reference to pertinacity comes into play in the case of @Zechariah 4:06 who deleted a comment presentng factual evidence which refuted his post, citing Anne Barnhardt
"What will it take? Benedict XVI Still Gives Apostolic Blessings, Bergolio Does Not"
Pope Francis does indeed give Apostolic Blessings like the follwoing.
LETTER OF POPE FRANCIS TO CARDINAL AGOSTINO VALLINI, VICAR IN ROME ON THE OCCASION OF THE 50th ANNIVERSARY OF PRIESTHOOD AND OF THE 25th ANNIVERSARY OF EPISCOPATE*
(concludes) "I impart my Apostolic Blessing, which I extend to the Auxiliary Bishops and to our beloved ecclesial Community, while I also ask you to pray for me, that I may effectively fulfil the Petrine ministry.
From the Vatican, 13 April 2014, the second of my Pontificate.
Most damningly, the author Zechariah 4:06removed this information from his posted article because it contradicted Anne Barnhardt's self-titeld "Barnhardt's Thesis" which he supports.
That shows:
1.) knowledge 2.) realization the knowledge is true and contradicts his beliefs 3.) wilfull concealment of that knowledge
Therefore proof exists the author knows and he tried to cover it up! That is, to borrow a phrase from Canon Law 751, "obstinate denial".
Relevant here, in connection with Anne Barnhardt are the following:
1.) none of her cited authors are members of "the Highest Levels Of The Church"
2.) Mr. Daly, did not receive a scholarly citation from Anne Barnhardt, even though this author is likely source of all her citations and whose position on schism Anne Barnhardt re-wrote and deliberately misinterpreted.
3.) Mr. Daly isn't even a priest.
4.) Anne Barnhart has supplied no evidence at all for her claim "I have this 110% personally face-to-face confirmed." In fact, all evidence points to this being a falsehood.
The three sources she cited are all dead. The fourth source, who is almost certainly the collator of the first three sources cited,and for which Anne Barnhardt neglected to provide a proper academic citation doesn't even live in the same country.
On her "about" page, Anne Barnhardt claims she can't get a job as a janitor.
Therefore it's very unlikely Anne Barnhardt chartered a flight and "personally face-to-face confirmed" anything with Mr. Daly who "finally settled in France where they now live in the Lot-et-Garonne department with their ten children."
At this point, it's more than fair to doubt the academic honesty of Anne Barnhardt and Zechariah 4:06 as well.
The former got busted for not paying her taxes and the latter is, sadly, a man who is willing to conceal information that contradicts his, and Barnhardt's views on Pope Francis (Vide: "the missing comment" attached at the bottom)...
At least now it's obvious where the "Jimmies" keep coming from.
@Saveusfromhell First, if you read my comments a bit more closely, you'd notice that "Ius Canonicum", 7:398, 1943 is not Canon Law. It is private work written by two priests. Second, my concerns about the authors' use of "they" is a contextual one and not a Canonical one. Simply put, you're asking for a legal citation from the Catholic Church for what is essentially a grammatical problem stemming …More
First, if you read my comments a bit more closely, you'd notice that "Ius Canonicum", 7:398, 1943 is not Canon Law. It is private work written by two priests.
Second, my concerns about the authors' use of "they" is a contextual one and not a Canonical one. Simply put, you're asking for a legal citation from the Catholic Church for what is essentially a grammatical problem stemming from a truncated quotation.
Apples and oranges.
Third, the full passage from which the two priests are quoted is missing. The obligation for providing that context, is on those using the original citation to argue their position.
In other words, providing you the full quote is the duty of Anne Barnhardt and Mr. Daly, since she's the one almost certainly quoting him, and he's the one quoting those authors.
I am not required to clarify a reference they inadequately cited. All I need do is point out the discrepancy present in what they HAVE cited. ;-)
"hence the reason latin is the offical language of the church as latin cannot be misinterperted in the dual that you have just tried to."
I'm not attempting to "misinterpret" the Latin. Please don't imply a motive absent any evidence of it.
Again, that's an accusation better pointed at the writers originally quoting this source.
How strange you so conveniently overlook the way Anne Barnhardt and Mr. Daly both cited the work in English. Obviously there are no complaints about that "dual" from you. Nor have you questioned either the authorship or source of that translation into English.
English was just fine 'n dandy when Barnhardt. 'n Daly were using it. So please do apply your standards and your concerns evenly.
If you have such a burning worry that the original Latin may have been mistranslated, then I suggest you take that up with the two writers citing an English translation of a book in Latin. After all, they're the ones responsible for what they are citing. Again, that's Mr. Daly and Ms. Barnhardt.
Yes, Latin is the official langauge of the Church. However returning to my original point, These books are not the official Canon Law of The Catholic Church. These books don't even refer to the official Canon Law of The Church. Not anymore. They're out of date. Obsolete..
The Catholic Church no longer uses the 1917 Code. The current version is the 1983 Code. Thanks for playing, ;-)
"so your interpetation of "they" is just yours" @Saveusfromhell Actually, no. It's the interpretation of Wernz and Vidal. That's my point. ;-) "and makes no sense at all and could only be used by somone being disingenuous," Again, you make a claim absent support and motive absent evidence. The latter accusation of being disingenuous is a No True Scottsman Fallacy also. "by the way i deleted your …More
"so your interpetation of "they" is just yours" @Saveusfromhell
Actually, no. It's the interpretation of Wernz and Vidal. That's my point. ;-)
"and makes no sense at all and could only be used by somone being disingenuous,"
Again, you make a claim absent support and motive absent evidence. The latter accusation of being disingenuous is a No True Scottsman Fallacy also.
"by the way i deleted your comment prior to you replying."
I'm not sure what you mean. My original post is here. My first reply to you is here.
Perhaps your time would be better spent asking the authors citing this passage as support for their claims why they saw fit to quote only the parts they did and not the rest, who did their Latin English translation and getting a professional to double-check their work.
I'm noticing a very selective pattern of attention from you and, ironically enough, "disingenuous" is precisely the word I'd use for it.
Barring getting your questions answered by the people who introduced you to these authors, you would do well to familiarize yourself with GTV's user controls instead of deleting things you shouldn't or at least trying to, or whatever playful, light-hearted mischief you were up to. ;-)
"There is nothing in your post that supports your interpretation of the way Wernz and Vidal cite "they" , none zero nought." @Saveusfromhell ...except for the placement of the pronoun "they" as the subject of the sentence and the verbal phrase "cannot be numbered"negating that pronoun's incluson in the group serving as the sentence's object, i.e. "schismatics", the description of the latter …More
"There is nothing in your post that supports your interpretation of the way Wernz and Vidal cite "they" , none zero nought." @Saveusfromhell
...except for the placement of the pronoun "they" as the subject of the sentence and the verbal phrase "cannot be numbered"negating that pronoun's incluson in the group serving as the sentence's object, i.e. "schismatics", the description of the latter group is set off by a comma.
Meaning, everything following the comma describes the schismatics.
Let us review how Wernz and Vidal define schismatics... schismatics are those "who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation."
...and that's Barnhardt and Yerian et. al to a point.
So not only does everything in my post support my interpretation, everything in Wernz and Vidal's quote, supports my interepetation as well
You claiming otherwise by repeating variations of "zed" simply isn't going to change that. ;-) But please... do go on.
A less charitable soul than mine might begin to question your motives, suspecting ones akin to a malicious little gad-fly. Furious that some "un-named third party" (in a different context, though the pun is intended) swatted them with a suspension, it's trying to sting the hand it wrongly believes held the swatter. Like so many metaphoric flying pests, it's mostly noise and lacks the attention span necessary to sit down and really apply themselves to crafting an argument of any merit.
I however, attribute your errors to the usual sort of hurried reading that's common-place at the start of another busy day. We're on different time zones and, even barring that, my "day" started sometime late last night when I popped the tab on that "day's" first can of Red Bull.
Perhaps you can revisit this subject when you've given the full post a thorough re-reading and, better still, received a reply from the writers who originally quoted the sources that so concern you. ;-)
