Clergy & academic group accuse Pope Francis of heresy

[Mi_Rose]

A licentiate degree is the equivalent of a Master’s degree.
Source: Husband with a JCL.

 

[yankeesouth]

WATCH: Ignatius Press bosses suggest Rome reply to open letter accusing Francis of heresy

WATCH: Ignatius Press bosses suggest Rome reply to open letter accusing Francis of heresy - LifeSite

'These serious accusations should be looked at and responded to.'

www.lifesitenews.com

“As I read through it, I wasn’t quite persuaded that we had formal heresy or even that the statements [cited] of the Holy Father were materially heretical… But because of the arguments in the document and the persons making the argument, I think this is something that should be taken seriously.”

 

[ioannes_pius]

It was my understanding that a Pope could not commit the delict of heresy (given that he is above Canon Law as its supreme arbiter and he is judged by no one) but only the sin of heresy. Please, someone correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[jack63]

Doesn’t this like happen every other Tuesday. I stopped paying attention or caring a while ago.

…a Jesuit …who doesn’t put up with people and appoints whoever he wants as Cardinal and doesn’t care about American money .

 

[yammerGee]

45 replies, and not a single rebuttal in this thread of any particular accusations made in the letter, but quite a bit of discussion about “credentials,” as if that alone is a sufficient way to measure the truthfulness of the accusations. Even Jimmy Akin merely attacked the credentials and none of the theological matters discussed.

Regarding the “multitude of religions” comment in particular, here is what the letter says:

Since the statement is a joint statement with the Grand Imam, it cannot be interpreted in a sense that the Grand Imam would reject. Since the Grand Imam rejects the position that God positively wills only the existence of the Christian religion, it is not possible to give an orthodox interpretation to the statement. We therefore understand this statement in its natural sense as a denial of a truth of the Catholic faith.

This seems like a reasonable train of thought, hardly an “embarrassment” like Jimmy suggests. Can anyone respond to this?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Actually, if you watch the video from Fr. Fessio, that offered a pretty good “rebuttal” to the letter. Fr. Fessio pointed out that each of the statements cited by the authors of the letter can - and in fact should - be interpreted in an orthodox manner.

The problem really boils down to the Pope’s own ambiguous use of theological language. We can argue over his intentions in being so loosey-goosey with language until the cows come home. But ultimately that doesn’t matter. Any theologian worth his salt knows that when a Pope (or Council) makes an ambiguous comment, the comment itself must be interpreted in light of Scripture and Tradition.

I think the issue that every has is that the Pope makes X ambiguous comment; orthodox bishops and theologians attempt to understand it in light of Scripture and Tradition; heterodox bishops and theologians attempt to understand it as a rupture from Scripture and Tradition that serves their own agenda; some bickering ensues; folks ask for clarification; and there is silence from the Vatican. Adding to the silence is the issue that many heterodox bishops are being appointed to high level positions, and many heterodox theologians are being openly praised.

So, is the Pope himself a heretic? If the above paragraph is true, it’s unclear that he is. The most that can be said is that he’s made some rather unfortunate choices in appointments to the College of Cardinals and heads of various Congregations. And if that is true, then the authors of the letter have no grounds for publicly accusing the Pope of heresy in a so-called “open letter” to him. But perhaps I’m mistaken and they actually submitted the letter to him several days before making it public in order to give him time to respond (following the example of the Dubia Cardinals).

 

[otrrl]

The letter was an open letter to the bishops of the world, asking them to take up the issue whether PF has committed heresy, for the reasons that they state.

I don’t think that the faith is so impenetrable that what seems to be a list of respectable Catholics could not have a reasonable doubt about what the Holy Father has said and done. ANYBODY can write an open letter, and not having a doctorate in this or that, as Mr. Akin has stated, is a form of ad hominem against them. I think there’s not only a valid question about what heresy is, but what “embarrassing” is as well.

 

[twf]

I think he could… the issue is, who could judge him? Only his successor and/or an ecumenical council after he has abdicated or died.
Of course, John XXII was accused of heresy while still reigning, but he corrected his views.

 

[Joe_5859]

Even Jimmy Akin merely attacked the credentials and none of the theological matters discussed.

I don’t think that’s entirely true. Akin points out as silly the argument they make about Pope Francis’ “satanic staff.”

Frankly, I don’t find it necessary to bother reading this open letter if they are going to blatantly mischaracterize something like that. It seems petty to me and calls into question their objectivity. If they have to resort to stuff like that to find enough criticisms to fill their letter, it undermines the whole thing for me.

 

[ioannes_pius]

As far as I’m aware, John XXII wasn’t accused of heresy, but rather preaching a theologically erroneous opinion. The dogma he contradicted hadn’t yet been defined.

 

[yammerGee]

I’m not familiar with the staff issue’s history so I can’t comment on it. But the word “staff” appears only once in the entire document and consists of only one sentence under a sub-heading of “Other Indications.” Jimmy says he didn’t have enough time to analyze the letter in full yet he somehow found this particular sentence (buried on page 14) and decided to prioritize it as if it’s a main focus of the letter. That seems awfully disingenuous.

The letter lists seven supposed instances of heresy, which were the main focus - I’m surprised Jimmy skipped over them to talk about the staff instead.

 

[Finn]

I’ll preface my comment by saying I’m not a big fan of Pope Francis, and I think the accusations are likely accurate.

I’m against this letter because it undermines the authority of the Papacy. At the end of the day, Francis is Pope. He is sovereign, he is King. He answers to no one but God. There is nothing good that can come of this.

It’s not impossible that good outcomes could result from this - it all really depends on the responses, from the bishops and ultimately from the Pope.

Ambiguity could be dispelled, clarifications could be issued, specific unanswered questions could be addressed.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Sadly, if past action are indicative of future actions, that’s likely not going to be the case.

 

[TMC]

Frankly, I don’t think that these public stunts have much to do with theology. They are an attempt to recruit the laity into an internal power struggle within the hierarchy of the Church. I find them distasteful, to say the least.

 

[Mary888]

Academic Inquisition? In the name of whom?
You need a bishop to have a church. I guess this group doesn’t a bishop so they wrote a letter.
Anger against heresy was felt by many people even in the “golden age” of the Holy Fathers. But even they, who have been proven saints, after fasting and praying, they concluded the church is where a bishop is.
What this group lacks is fasting and praying imho. Just saying, maybe they do, but most people exploding in anger against bishops and synods these days, if you stick.closely enough to them you can hear from them that the full reflection of a case as serious as a heretic bishop hasn’t been followed. They just quote saints and catechism and prove no veridity to their revelation (because in this case it is needed) other then intellectual collection. Fast, pray and ask the Holy Spirit. Because this is religion not changing a manager of a company. These people should be required some sort of signs for their claims. Because when you do ask them all you get is copy paste of quotes. Ok, the keyboard has been martyred, how about the persons who claim these things?
To the more sensitive of us they bring a lot of strife and suffering brought by unsolicited doubt. Yet they don’t care, they usually just know they are right.
For the size of their claims they should be asked if God spoke to THEM personally on it this subject.

 

[Genesis315]

I’m against this letter because it undermines the authority of the Papacy. At the end of the day, Francis is Pope. He is sovereign, he is King. He answers to no one but God. There is nothing good that can come of this.

A Pope promoting heresies and errors unopposed does even more to undermine the authority of the papacy, unfortunately. It’s a terrible situation anyway you look at it. The only good that can come of such a situation is, like any such evil God permits, that the good and the true may shine brightly in contrast. As the Scripture says, “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19).

Bishops have their own authority and duties. The Church teaches the following about each of them:

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium:

But each of them, as a member of the episcopal college and legitimate successor of the apostles, is obliged by Christ’s institution and command to be solicitous for the whole Church,(33*) and this solicitude, though it is not exercised by an act of jurisdiction, contributes greatly to the advantage of the universal Church. For it is the duty of all bishops to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church, to instruct the faithful to love for the whole mystical body of Christ, especially for its poor and sorrowing members and for those who are suffering persecution for justice’s sake,(160) and finally to promote every activity that is of interest to the whole Church, especially that the faith may take increase and the light of full truth appear to all men.

If a Pope were, by his words and actions, to undermine and harm the unity of faith, the other bishops should oppose such things publicly, in order to safeguard it. At the very least, bishops can be appealed to in order to do this in the face of such a Pope.

continued…

 

[Leferdion]

What Jimmy said is he did not have enough time to talk about the letter in full on the show. He did read and analyse the letter in full. Listen to what he said again.

 

[Genesis315]

…continued from above

If a Pope, God forbid, were to defect from the Church through heresy, like any other member of the faithful could, there would be no act of jurisdiction above the Apostolic See, but would merely be a recognition that the Church is in need of a new visible head (just as the Church must recognize whether a Pope has validly resigned or actually died in order to proceed to a new election).

In any event, the heresy that would separate involves more than simply being wrong a lot publicly. If it happens, the bishops would recognize it.

Since the perpetual succession of Popes is a constituent element of the Church, there would be divine assistance in this recognition of headlessness so that the whole Church did not proceed indefinitely without a head, which it cannot as defined by the Council of Constance and the First Vatican Council. The fact that the entire episcopate does not recognize it, shows it has not happened.

Hunter’s Outlines of Dogmatic Theology Vol 1:

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.

 

[yammerGee]

Okay, that’s fair. It’s still odd he chose not to address ANY of the letter’s seven main points when rebutting it, instead he focuses on credentials and the staff.

 

[Emeraldlady]

To the more sensitive of us they bring a lot of strife and suffering brought by unsolicited doubt. Yet they don’t care, they usually just know they are right.
For the size of their claims they should be asked if God spoke to THEM personally on it this subject.

Absolutely 100% agree with you. They aren’t just asking us to attack the Pope, but the CDF, the theological commissions, the college of experts in 2000 years of theology and history whose lives work is to guard the deposit of faith for generations to come. It’s outrageous. Who are they to counsel us ordinary lay Catholics in the path of Gods truth over the Magisterium. And I’m horribly affronted that they continue to claim Catherine of Siena as their precedent. A woman renowned for her holiness and recognised as a mouthpiece of Gods Will by her stigmata and mystical marriage.

The fate of the young and those with immature faith that are drawn into the wilderness of doubt in the authority of the Pope, will surely be on their heads of these people who esteem their own authority by their own actions. grrrrrrr.