CathInfo.com

Posted below is a link to an OPEN LETTER to Dr. E. Michael Jones in reply to his public assertions regarding the "excommunication" Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò for the crime of schism and his challenge to the "Guild Prophets" to repent from having supported his actions to their followers. The purpose of the OPEN LETTER is to examine Dr. Jones' superficial understanding of the crime of schism, its imputability, and its relationship to the virtues of faith and charity for the end of correcting his errors as well as those of the "Guild Prophets". Dr. Jones does not know what constitutes the proximate rule of faith.

A copy of the OPEN LETTER has been sent to Dr. Jones inviting him to enter into a public written exchange of the contents of the LETTER. I am sure that Dr. Jones would prefer a live video debate format limited to one to two hours but such a format would be impossible to explore the problem in the depth it deserves because it takes a lot less time to make an error than it takes to correct it.

A copy of the LETTER was also sent to the "Guild Prophets".


  http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Vigano_Defense%20of%20Archbishop%20Viganno_OPEN_LETTER_E_M_JONES.pdf



E. Michael Jones
@EMichaelJones1

Archbishop Vigano has been excommunicated for the "crime of schism." Quo vadis, Taylor Marshall? Quo vadis, John-Henry Westen? Quo vadis, Michael Matt? Quo vadis, Robert Moynihan? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is and follow Vigano into schism? Or are you going to apologize for supporting him and leading your followers into the sin which got him excommunicated? Non datur tertius. Join me tonight at five at https://cozy.tv/emichaeljones for my podcast discussing this.
3:08 PM · Jul 5, 2024

AUDIO LINK:
EMJ Live 78: Archbishop Vigano Excommunicated - Culture Wars Podcast | Lyssna här | Poddtoppen.se

Bullet Points:
1.    Extra judicial process is an administrative action that cannot be used without the permission of the accused in any hearing where the juridic standing in the Church of the accused will be changed.
2.    Excommunication changes the juridic standing in the Church.
3.    All heretics are schismatics.
4.    Since Vatican I, all schismatics are heretics.
5.    There is only one act that manifests schism and that is manifest heresy.
6.    Absent manifest heresy a canonical trial is necessary to establish a schismatic intent.
7.    The essence of schism is denial of the universal jurisdiction of the pope.
8.    Absent the existence of manifest heresy no Catholic can be accused of schism without the proof of denial universal jurisdiction of the pope.
9.    Faith is related to heresy as Charity is related to schism.
10. Faith precedes charity. Without faith there is no charity therefore all heretics are schismatics.
11. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith for all the faithful.
12. E. Michael Jones is a Neo-modernist and makes the pope his proximate rule of faith and not dogma. This error leads to conservative Catholicism and Sedevacantism.
13. Archbishop Vigano's denial that Pope Francis is a legitimate pope is essentially different from the claims of sedevacantists and will become moot at the death of Pope Francis.
14. Pope Francis is a manifest heretic and therefore a schismatic.
15. Those that make Pope Francis their proximate rule of faith will follow him in schism and ultimate damnation.

    http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Vigano_Defense%20of%20Archbishop%20Viganno_OPEN_LETTER_E_M_JONES.pdf

Hi Drew! Good to see you here again! I've only skimmed the letter but, what I saw looks great!

4.    Since Vatican I, all schismatics are heretics.

While this is true in practice (in every case I know about), it is theoretically still possible to be a schismatic without being a heretic.  You can be in chronic disobedience to the Pope to an extent sufficient to constitute schism even while admitting his right in theory to command your obedience.  So, for example, the SSPX very clearly border on it, where they claim "in theory" that the Pope has the authority to command our obedience, but then assert that they have the right to chronically disobey his teaching, and the universal discipline he establishes if they judge that they "know better".