Hypothetical case: Would it be a sin to call a heretic pope/bishop/priest by the name “heretic”?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sub_Tuum_Praesidium
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TK421 said:
It’s not possible for a Pope to officially teach heresy from the chair.
Click to expand...
It’s not possible for the Pope to BE a heretic.

Not because he as an individual couldn’t fail in that way, but for the reason that he would cease to BE the Pope once he began a heretic.

You can find very high level arguments on this, but the most common position seems to be that the Cardinals would hold a trial not of the Pope, but rather to determine whether he still was the Pope. But theologians seem all over on this.

I think there are a couple of threads on byzcath.org on this, but I forget which subform. I suspect googling would find the results drowned in sede sites, and I can’t suggest a filter offhand.
 
I can think of no scenario—hypothetical or otherwise—where it would be necessary or prudent for me to call a member of the clergy a “heretic” either to their face or behind their back. I have no position of authority over them by which to make that determination.

I might refer to specific teachings as heresy. Ultimately, clarifying a given teaching is more useful that pointing fingers and calling people heretics. Doing that is unnecessarily distracting. It turns it into being about the person rather than about the teaching.
 
I do not believe in hypothetical discussions.
What if? You can what if about just about anything.
 
dochawk said:
It’s not possible for the Pope to BE a heretic.

Not because he as an individual couldn’t fail in that way, but for the reason that he would cease to BE the Pope once he began a heretic.
Click to expand...
I believe that is only true if he’s teaching/preaching his heresy. If he’s just quietly minding his own business while having heretical ideas I think he’s still Pope.
 
I think that that pubic expression of some source is part of it, yes, in the general discussions.

although it’s tough to make certain statements about variations on hypothetical situations based upon speculation . . .🤔
 
dochawk said:
I think that that pubic expression of some source is part of it, yes, in the general discussions.

although it’s tough to make certain statements about variations on hypothetical situations based upon speculation . . .🤔
Click to expand...
I’m guessing you mean public!
 
dochawk said:
although it’s tough to make certain statements about variations on hypothetical situations based upon speculation . . .🤔
Click to expand...
yep!

that said, this pope has come under allegations of promoting heresy from some in the hierarchy…
 
With regards to the Pope, I just want to point out that a heretical Pope would still be the Pope. I don’t think it would be right to say that, for one you probably haven’t discussed it with the person, and you can’t read someone else’s interior thoughts. Say you do have a heretical Bishop, so what? What would you complaining about it do? You’d probably still have a heretical bishop afterwards.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
With regards to the Pope, I just want to point out that a heretical Pope would still be the Pope.
Click to expand...
Given that t Doctors of the Church say exactly the opposite., this isn’t something that you can simply assert as a starting point . . .
 
If one has watched carefully, one can see that certain individuals have advanced their opinions on the matter.

The net result is that the rest of the hierarchy and theologians across the world have maintained silence on the charges; and time passes on. Meaning there has been a degree of noise, and then everyone moved on to doing the work of the Church.
 
otjm said:
The net result is that the rest of the hierarchy and theologians across the world have maintained silence on the charges; and time passes on. Meaning there has been a degree of noise, and then everyone moved on to doing the work of the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes… but not on ‘noise’

Silence… has been the bain of the Church re: Sexual Abuses…

Noise? Let’s consider Sound… . 🤔

Cannot come from any who are involved in said and similar purposeful Silences aka Coverups…
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for your answers.
I believe I can let the cat outta the bag now.
The reason for the topic was that (1) in intimate conversation I referred to P Francis as a heretic, and (2) on twitter I replied to an apparent (or virtual) defender of idolatry, Marxism and sodomy (or defending the support of James Martin SJ, which is practically the same), that P Francis was Communist, Pagan and I-don’t-remember-what. Given the fact that J M Bergoglio does support these things… my friend from case (1) reacted as if I had just committed a grave sin.
That’s why I asked what I asked (and the form I asked it was because I didn’tvwantbthis topic to become a fight over P Francis).
 
Yes, that was definitely out of line. Pope Francis is neither a communist nor a heretic. To call him that is calumny.
 
How about we stick to one train of thought? You are shifting gears; my answer was specific to your prior statement. That was about a group who have charged the Pope with heresy.

Silence in the past about sexual abuses was a past issue; the Church has been far more forthcoming when there is an abuse. My reference to “noise” was specific to your prior statement; it has nothing to do with the sexual abuse issue.
 
I am not a confessor, so I will not posit whether you committed a sin or not; but I would suggest strongly you speak with your confessor about what you said and about what role charity needs to play in your comments and thought concerning the Pope.
 
otjm said:
My reference to “noise” was specific to your prior statement
Click to expand...
Your argument is fallacious … argumentum ad populum…

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as:… “If many believe so, it is so.”

aka “noise”
 
You didn’'t and still don’t get what I said. I am not going to get in an argument with you, but I guarantee I did not make an ad hominem statement. Nor did I make an argument. The “noise” was a small group of people sounding off as if they knew more than everyone else; they made false charges, and the net result was they were totally ignored. And so, everyone “moved on”. No ad hominem at all.

As noted, you don’t stick to one point; I make a comment and you bring up something else as if it were a refutation to my point. So this is my last response to you; I hope your Thanksgiving was good; have a purposeful Advent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top