So, I think many people believe that I'm being very harsh with Father Robinson ... except that to be weak and mealy-mouthed about it has the effect of implying that those errors are just opinion and are just "liberal" and within the realm of what one can believe and teach and still qualify as a Catholic.
That was the same problem with the Dubia sent to Bergoglio, where they had some "concerns" and "hesitations" and "uncertainties" and "questons" about what Bergoglio had taught. By doing that, the message you're actually sending is that you're "not sure" whether one can be a Catholic and hold that one can receive the Sacraments while living in a state of sin.
Recall that one becomes a heretic not only for open heresy, but also for DOUBTING truths that are de fide. If someone said, for instance, that Our Lady is part of the Holy Quadrinity now ... and you responded with "hmm, I'm not sure" ... then you're also saying that you're "not sure" about the dogma regarding the Holy Trinity. That makes you a heretic every bit as much as if you denied it.
See, it's only this modern age that has led us to tolerate heresy. So hostile were the Church Fathers, and the Church in general, toward heresy, that they declared anathemas over single "iota"s, since for them, as Bishop Williamson often said, "ideas mattered" ... and objective truth mattered and was in fact the measure of all reality.
It's only with the creeping subjectivism (that was evidently not taught at STAS after +Williamson was kicked out) that you can tolerate error because "sincerity" is the ultimate criterion. If you're "sincere" in your heresy, then, hey, it's not so bad, and you have a right to hold it, and you can be saved just the same, as long as you're (subjectively) convinced about it.
So we need to get their attention, and we can't do that with "well, I personally think, Father, that you're mistaken on this point ..." Sure, that's persuasive. But if you say, "Father, that's Modernist heresy." ... at the very last, you'll get his attention, whereas the former is going to be blow off immediately. I'd be happy to retract it also if you or he can explain how I'm wrong, or how St. Robert Bellarmine was wrong. I'd rather retract later if I'm wrong than to let it "slide" as if heresy were "no big deal". As long as he offers the Tridentine Mass, and has good-smelling incense and melodious bells, then that's all that counts, no big deal.
I love the clip from Bishop Williamson about "nitheness" where he concludes, "No. I despise you." [for error and heresy]
And I do absolutely DESPISE this heretical teaching of Father Paul Robinson. I've actually seen the destructiveness of this in action, after 7 years of being taught the exact same garbage by the Jesuits, first in High School, then at University (both Jesuit). I saw many young men at the Jesuit High School lose the faith because they were immediately taught that the Book of Genesis was a myth, there weren't a real Adam and Eve, that these are all stories to make a point, that the Bible didn't intend to teach about history or science, that the parting of the Red Sea was just because at certain times this marsh they walked through would recede, and on and on and on. That's where the Modernists got their start, attacking Sacred Scripture. What else was just something "not intended by Scripture". Oh, St. Paul, in his misogynistic passages, was just reflecting the attitude of his times, and that wasn't the Holy Ghost teaching that (for those who even believed that the Holy Ghost had anything to do with Sacred Scripture). What's next? This type of crap shattered the faith of countless young men at my Jesuit All-Boys' High School.
So, I will not hold punches, I will not be "nice" or "nithe" ... since the fact that he poses at a Traditional priest makes him THAT MUCH MORE DANGEROUS, since the more dressing you put on top of the poison, the more likely people are to swallow it. If the same thing were said by some Jesuit wearing a rainbow stole while officiating a clown Mass, people of good faith would immediately recognize it as heresy and reject it outright. But put the same nonsense behind a Trad priest using all the smells and bells, and "well, I guess it must be OK to think this way".
NO !!! Father Paul Robinson is a Modernist Heretic, and his book belongs on the Index. And the SSPX should be condemned for approving of and promoting his book. People have been burned at the stake for FAR LESS than what he holds and teaches.
BTW, I'm also not one to make the charge of heresy lightly. I've often locked horns with sedevacantists who shoot from the hip and throw the word heresy around like it's going out of style, when some error has some note less than that of heresy or else they're just plain wrong about something even being an error (where it's more of an opinion). While I do believe Bergoglio was and Prevost is a heretic, I would say that the majority of the accusations are wrong.
Galileo was condemned as a heretic for FAR LESS, for something that could even be debated slightly more, i.e. by claiming that when Sacred Scripture says that the sun moved or the sun stopped, this really means that the earth stopped, etc. In a sense, motion is relative, so one could make a better case for that.
But Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that during the Great Deluge, the ENTIRE earth was covered with water, the peaks of ALL the mountains, and that ALL flesh was destroyed from the earth except those in the ark ... that does not mean there was a local flood in the Mediterranean basin that wiped out maybe 10% of all humanity, covered NO mountain peaks (since the water would quickly dissipate below that level) ... and where instead of spending decades building an Ark, Noah could have just packed up and moved a couple hundred miles. There's no way to RESCUE that without having to attribute error to Sacred Scripture. That's heresy. St. Robert Bellarmine declared that Galileo was heretical not because scientific matters themselves can be heretical, but because by implication he denied the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, by contradicting it, i.e. his positions were heretical not ex parte objecti, sed ex parte Dicentis, not because of the objective content but because of WHO TAUGHT IT, namely, the Holy Ghost.
Now if I say ... "Well ... in my opinion, it's just that, I think Father Robinson is mistaken." and of course I add, "oh, but I have the greatest respect for him, and he's a wonderful Trad priest, just that he's wrong about this." ... what would I be doing? I'd be CONDONING THE HERESY, saying it's just opinion, and that it's no big deal and does nothing to detract from how great a priest he is, etc. etc. Sorry. No can do. I call out heresy as heresy.
I mentioned that the Councils declared anathemas against heretics. Well, they often added anathemas against those who TOLERATED heresies and effectively being complicit in them and enabling them. If I "softened" up against Father Robinson, I'd become an enabler of his heresies, and I refuse to do that. I will not be party to the wreckage of faith his errors can cause and have caused. Also, even charity toward the heretic requires being blunt and direct. Had the Dubia "Cardinals" just come straight out and said he was teaching heresy ... I think that could have caused a massive cascading effect in the Church. Instead, most of those who self-identify as Catholic might have mentioned a thing or two about it on X, until they got bored, and moved on with a yawn.
Topic: Fr. Robinson: It’s All Valid, Trust Us! (Read 2925 times)