May. 2, 2019 | http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/on-charging-a-pope-with-heresy On Charging a Pope with Heresy If you are going to charge anybody (especially the pope) with heresy, you need to prove your case, and this letter doesn’t. Jimmy Akin There are multiple problems with the recent Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church that charges Pope Francis with heresy, but here we will focus on the core problem: the letter fails to sustain the charge of heresy. This fault is likely due to the lack of familiarity that the 19 signatories have with the details of the concept. A cursory review of the list of signatories indicates that none have doctorates in the relevant fields of canon law or sacred theology, though a few have licentiates (the equivalent of master’s degrees). None seem to be specialists in ecclesiology—the branch of theology that deals most directly with the Magisterium of the Church—and none seem to have published a book on the Magisterium and how it engages its infallibility. From this perspective, some of the flaws in the letter may be understandable, but from another perspective, they are not. If you are going to charge anybody with heresy—but especially if you are going to charge a pope with it—you need to prove your case, and this letter doesn’t. What Heresy Is According to the Code of Canon Law, “heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (CIC 751; cf. CCC 2089). For heresy to occur, the following conditions must be met: The person committing it must be baptized Afterward, he must refuse to believe (doubt or deny) a particular truth He must do so obstinately The truth in question must be one that is to be believed by “divine and Catholic faith” What Divine and Catholic Faith Is “Divine and Catholic faith” is a term of art that is explained in the previous canon: A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium (CIC 750 §1). This requires some unpacking, but for a truth to require divine and Catholic faith, the following conditions must be met: It must be divinely revealed (i.e., be found in Scripture or Tradition) The Magisterium must have proposed it to be divinely revealed The Magisterium must have done so, either by (a) the solemn magisterium or (b) the ordinary and universal magisterium. “The solemn magisterium” means an infallible definition issued either by a pope or an ecumenical council. “The ordinary and universal magisterium” means an infallible exercise of teaching performed by the bishops in union with the pope, even though they are not gathered in an ecumenical council. Consequently, a truth that requires divine and Catholic faith is a truth that, one way or another, the Magisterium has infallibly defined to be divinely revealed. We have a name for such truths: dogmas. What Dogma Is A dogma is a special kind of Church teaching. Any time the Church authoritatively teaches something, it is a doctrine (Latin, doctrina = “teaching”). Within the set of doctrines is a smaller set of teachings that have been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. These are infallible doctrines. Within the set of infallible doctrines is a smaller set that consists of those infallible teachings that the Magisterium has infallibly defined to be divinely revealed. These are the dogmas. Note that just because something is infallible, that doesn’t make it a dogma. The Magisterium has to have infallibly said that it is divinely revealed for that to be the case. The distinctions between these categories, as well as examples of doctrines that belong to them, are discussed in a 1998 commentary by Joseph Ratzinger and Tarcisio Bertone. They are also discussed, at length, in my book Teaching With Authority: How to Cut Through Doctrinal Confusion & Understand What the Church Really Says. To give one example of how a doctrine can be infallible but not a dogma, Ratzinger and Bertone note that the Magisterium has infallibly defined that the priesthood can be conferred only on men, but it has not yet defined that this truth is divinely revealed. Consequently, the reservation of the priesthood to men is an infallible doctrine but not a dogma—at least not yet. Continued...
Continued from above... Preliminary Consolidation Putting the above together, the following conditions need to be met to sustain a charge of heresy: The person committing it must be baptized Afterward, he must refuse to believe (doubt or deny) a particular truth He must do so obstinately The truth in question must be a dogma—that is, a truth the Magisterium has infallibly defined to be divinely revealed. This is where the flaws in the Open Letter come in. Failing to Demonstrate that Dogmas are Involved The Open Letter lists seven propositions that the signatories take to be heresies, or denials of dogmas. To support each claim, they cite various biblical passages and Church documents. The biblical passages are neither necessary nor sufficient to demonstrate a dogma. They are not necessary because a dogma can be based in Tradition rather than Scripture. They are not sufficient because, at most, they show that a truth is found in divine revelation. They do not show that the Magisterium has infallibly defined it to be divinely revealed. This means that, to demonstrate a dogma, we need to focus on the Church documents. Unfortunately, many of the documents they cite are simply not relevant to this endeavor. Many do not contain any infallible definitions, and nobody has ever claimed that they do. Others do contain infallible definitions, but it is not clear that they give rise to dogmas. Remember: To be a dogma, the Magisterium must infallibly define that a truth is divinely revealed, not just that it is true. In some cases, the documents use language indicating infallibility (e.g., the word “anathema,” though one has to be careful about this word, as it is sometimes used without making a definition, see Teaching With Authority §§480-488). But to create a dogma, the Magisterium needs to go further and, in some way, indicate that a truth is divinely revealed (e.g., by saying “is divinely revealed” in the case of a positive expression of dogma or by saying “is heretical” in the case of a doctrinal violation). The signatories of the Open Letter make no attempt to do the needed work. They either do not quote the language used by Church documents or they do not argue that the language they do quote shows that a truth has been infallibly defined as divinely revealed. Instead, they cite passages as if the sheer number of them proves their case, which it doesn’t. Indeed, it isn’t even clear that the passages they cite mandate the specific propositions they have in mind. This is sloppy. It may sound impressive to someone not familiar with this area, but it is simply inadequate to the task they are attempting. Failure to Demonstrate the Allegation In addition to failing to demonstrate dogmas, the Open Letter also fails to demonstrate that Pope Francis obstinately doubts or denies dogmas. One of the requirements for doing this is showing that his statements or actions cannot be understood in another sense. If they can be understood consistently with dogma then the obligation of charity—and Pope Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity”—requires that they be taken this way. Many of the Open Letter’s charges deal with the issue of divorce and civil remarriage, as discussed in the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but as Cardinal Gerhard Müller has shown, the relevant statements in this document can be understood in harmony with Church teaching. You can’t make a successful charge of heresy as long as this is the case. Neither does the piling up of questionable staffing decisions—which the Open Letter does at length—prove the case. Staffing decisions are influenced by multiple factors, and you can’t cherry pick the data to support a claim of heresy, especially when the person in question is on record supporting Church teaching (e.g., regarding homosexuality). Summing Up The Open Letter has many other flaws, but its chief one is that it fails to make the case that the present pope is guilty of heresy. To do that, it would need to show the following: The Magisterium has infallibly defined some specific truth It has infallibly defined that this specific truth is divinely revealed, creating a dogma The pope has been baptized (that’s easy) The pope’s words or actions indicate that he refuses to believe the dogma His words or actions cannot be understood in a way consistent with the dogma He does so obstinately If you can’t do those things, then don’t waste the public’s time. In particular, don’t waste our time citing irrelevant documents that don’t prove your point, and don’t waste our time—as the signatories of the Open Letter do—with loopy charges regarding a pastoral staff that the pope has carried or a cross he has worn. It’s one thing to ask for clarifications, voice concerns or express disagreement, but making charges of heresy is another matter. It’s gravely reckless and irresponsible to charge anyone with an ecclesiastical crime as serious as heresy if you can’t prove it, and it’s even worse to do so with regard to the pope, given the scandal, confusion, and risk of individual schism that it will create for the faithful.
Brian, I don't think that Jim Akin is blind if that it what you are inferring. Jimmy Akin is pointing out the path that should be taken and he is stating that the objective of this letter was not the right path. Mr. Akin states that following, "It’s one thing to ask for clarifications, voice concerns or express disagreement, but making charges of heresy is another matter." I don't think that Catholics should stop criticizing some of the actions of Pope Francis, I think that we absolutely have to do so with charity of course. In addition, I appreciate that the letter highlighted various issues with the current papacy but it appears that the accusation of heresy is unfounded at this time.
Yeah, if only there were some mechanism to ask the Pope for clarity on these confusing issues. Like official questions a group of cardinals could send him or something... Golly jeepers, no one thought of that! Yeah that would have to work! Thanks Mr. Akin. You're my hero!
Ah, a proper understanding of the concept of having blinders on. Let’s just say I’m underwhelmed by Mr. Akin’s patronizing approach. The question is not, as usual, whether material heresy is being promoted (it obviously is), but whether that heresy has crossed the line into manifest obstinate heresy.
I did not care for his dismissive and patronizing attitude either. I used to like Mr. Akin before all of this mess started the past few years. I am all for a conservative approach and I do not have the qualifications to know whether or not this latest letter from the theologians was the best way to go, however I have not heard of any strong call by Mr. Akin for clarity from the Vatican and he does not at all seem distrubed by what is going on. That tells me all I need to know about him. I also find it interesting that his predecessor Patrick Coffin decided to leave his prosperous career heading Catholic Answers right around the time he decided to stop defending all of this stuff coming out of the Vatican. Very curious timing indeed. Being a member of Catholic Answers and confronting the crisis now facing the Church seem to be mutually exclusive.
P., I detect a note of sarcasm. I hear ya, as they say. The same thing will probably occur with this letter though, Pope Francis will ignore it just like he ignored the Dubia, multiple filial corrections and requests for clarification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amori...r_clarifications;_dubia_and_filial_correction I understand what you are stating here too. I'm not certain what I would do to be honest if I were Jimmy Akin but he is not saying to just shut up and take it. Edited to add: I have wondered if the letter should have stayed more on task to the issue of heresy but we have a lot of the knowledge about the extraneous complaints against the pope and those he has promoted. I think that they may have wrote the letter so it would paint the full picture of the situation for those who are not as familiar as we are. I also wonder if this the only writing that they plan to put forth, maybe like Vigano they will follow up with something else. I would think that if Pope Francis does allow deaconesses that we will almost assuredly see something else from them.
Only a note? I was hoping for a whole concerto. What exactly is he saying? Ask the Pope for clarity? That's his suggestion? Really? Good plan! So much for his vaunted intelligence. What is his attitude and outlook on the current crisis? It doesn't seem to be one of grave concern for what is happening. Can anyone find any articles he has written about the deviations from Catholic Teaching that are coming out of Rome? Has he expressed concern for that as much as he has for people speaking up against it? If I am wrong about Mr. Akin I will happily retract what I have said. I would love for him to be on the side of truth, but so far I just don't see it. Mr Akin. Wake up. People are going to Hell because of all this. You know about Hell right? It's in all of those fancy theology books you read.
Exactly. The pope's "field hospital" is leading people to hell. It is a soul crematorium. o repentence. No need to in PF kumbaya church.
P., You can do a whole concerto but how will it sound? Jimmy Akin is mainly a Catholic apologist and it appears from the title of the piece that he wrote about this letter he is attempting to educate people "On Charging a Pope with Heresy". You may want Mr. Akin to step out and give his personal opinion about what is occurring in the Church but it appears that he is trying to stay unemotional about what is occurring. I believe that he is on the side of the Truth but possibly just not the way that you would prefer him to be. Personally, I appreciate that we have Mr. Akin's insight on charging any pope with heresy and I don't think that it helps to appear to be like the Democrats who are on a mission to impeach President Trump regardless of whatever means that it takes to do so. I think this is what Mr. Akin is stating too, in so many words, and that if we don't maintain our wits we can make things worse. Although, I think that he did come across a bit to harsh on the signatories but I suppose that he was trying to make the point to stay on point. Heresy is serious charge and including some of the things that they did in the letter can take away from that serious point and ultimately he is saying that he doesn't believe that they made a good case for heresy. Patrick Coffin has obviously decided to take a different path. I haven't looked to see what he has stated about this letter but since you mentioned him in your other post, do you know if he has expressed his thoughts about this letter? And if so, can you provide a link? This isn't going to help.
The "spirit of vatican 2 " = apostasy. The "seamless garment" = apostasy. Everything about PF = apostasy.
I forgot to add, he is a student of liberation theology. The one condemned by St JP2. More evidence about this apostate, one in which he took a special vow as a Jesuit to be obedient to the pope but obviously told St JP2 to pond sand.
I suspect the faithful will have to suffer through with this pope for some time to come. Pope Francis is not going anywhere until God decides the time is right, and we will need a truckload of prayers and patience to survive this papacy. I keep reminding myself that his replacement could be even worse.
Personally, I do feel that some people are being very tough on Jimmy Akin, maybe they don't like redheads. I just listened to the Taylor Marshall video on this letter that Brian posted yesterday. I found it interesting that although they admonish Jimmy Akin and state that he must now be on "Pope Francis' team" they actually seem to agree with Jimmy Akin's main point. They basically are questioning whether Pope Francis has truly committed formal heresy and Taylor Marhsall also states that he would not have called Pope Francis a heretical pope in the letter but would have requested an inquiry for such, a clarification. Here is another article/video that is being referenced in a few different places in regard to the discussion of this letter. In the video below, Fr. Joseph Fessio and Mark Brumley of Ignatius Press also appear to agree with the main point that Jimmy Akin has made and they are also requesting a clarification from the Holy See on these possible 7 heretical points. WATCH: Ignatius Press bosses suggest Rome reply to open letter accusing Francis of heresy Dorothy Cummings McLean | https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/w...ply-to-open-letter-accusing-francis-of-heresy SAN FRANCISCO, May 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― Both the founder and the CEO of the leading U.S. Catholic publishing company have issued a statement saying that an open letter released this week accusing Pope Francis of heresy should not be ignored by Catholic leaders in Rome. On April 30, Fr. Joseph Fessio and Mark Brumley of Ignatius Press published a short video expressing their opinions on the importance of the “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church”. About 20 prominent clergymen and scholars issued the open letter accusing Pope Francis of being "guilty of the delict of heresy." They asked that the bishops of the Catholic Church, to whom the open letter is addressed, to "take the steps necessary to deal with the grave situation" of a pope committing this crime. “It’s an important document,” Fessio said, mentioning that it had been published that morning by LifeSiteNews. “I think something needs to be said about it. There’ll be time for reflection later.” Ignatius Press’ CEO Mark Brumley said that his first reaction was that the letter was “something that someone of some significance at the Holy See should address.” “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.” Among the signatories are world-renowned philosopher Professor John Rist and theologian Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, theologian Fr. Thomas Crean, OP, and philosopher Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. Since the letter’s release, 12 additional distinguished signatories have added their names, bringing up the total number of signers to 31 as of this writing. Brumley explained that this would mean someone at a “high level” in Church leadership should address the questions asked by the document and show how Francis’s statements could be shown to be consistent with Catholic doctrine. “[There] should be some explanation,” he said. “It shouldn’t just be left to people to wonder.” Fessio said that his first thoughts when reading the document was that it would be ignored if its authors weren’t significant. “But as a matter of fact these authors ― some of them, anyway ― are quite reputable.” Fessio noted that even if some of the signers might be construed as being extremists, “even extremists can sometimes make good points.” “So the second question was ‘Well, what about the document itself? Is it outrageous? Is it outlandish? Is it well-balanced? Is it substantive?’ And I wasn’t sure. It’s 20 pages long, so I read it this morning,” he said. “There’s seven different ... heresy counts,” Fessio continued. “Each one is clearly stated. Each one of them is backed up by previous Church teaching, either councils or popes. And then they show where Pope Francis has made statements that seem to contradict these Church teachings, and then also how by his actions and his inactions, in some cases, he was to corroborate that understanding.” The heresies the authors of the Open Letter attribute to the Argentinian pontiff are as follows: A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin. A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action. A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience. Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right, or requested or even commanded by God. It is false that the only sexual acts that are good of their kind and morally licit are acts between husband and wife. Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. God not only permits, but positively wills, the pluralism and diversity of religions, both Christian and non-Christian. Fessio concluded that, based on its internal merits, the document could not be dismissed as the work of extremists. Brumley observed that this kind of document is widely circulated instantly with today's communication technologies. Because of the reach of the document, and because of the high stature of its authors, he believes it should be addressed by the highest pastoral authorities. Citing St. Ignatius of Loyola’s dictum that one must try to give another’s words the most charitable interpretation, Fessio said that he felt that Church authorities should address the document, rather than ignore it, so as to give an acceptable interpretation of Francis’ controversial statements. “These serious accusations should be looked at and responded to and [authorities should] show how the pope’s statements can be interpreted and should be interpreted as consistent in meaning with the Church’s teaching and the doctrine of the faith.” Brumley said that he was worried that the Holy See will just ignore the letter because they believe there are people who will be against Francis no matter what he says. However, the Ignatius Press CEO believes that there are other people who don’t want to believe that the pope is heretical and will want “to see and understand his comments as consistent with the teaching of the Church.” “So I think those people would welcome clarification.” Fessio underscored that a response to the document was for the “good of the Church and for the good of the Holy Father.” “This is clearly not insubstantial. It’s clearly not mere extremist carping or ranting. It’s a statement carefully worded and carefully thought through. If it’s not responded to, then it will lead to greater confusion, and people will not be certain about whether they can trust the Pope or not.” He insisted that the document should be responded to “in such a way that we can reunite people together under the one mind of Christ which is represented by His bishops.” Brumley added that given contemporary criticism of how the Church has been “ineffective” in answering “certain questions” in the past, the document simply cannot be dismissed “You can’t ignore these things,” he said. “They pile up. They create a narrative. They reinforce bad attitudes in people. And even people of good begin to say ‘Well, there must be something to this. Why does the Holy See not speak out?” “That’s what I’m worried about.” [This is what we are all worried about, right?]
I was in touch with Catholic Answers about Pope Francis one time and they said discussing it was not part of their job description. I wrote them that this was very convenient for them. I never got an answer back. I don;t like to be too cynical or uncharitable but with a lot of these big Catholic places I suspect follow the money trail would be a good place of understanding. If you don't stay in the bed , you won't get fed kinda thing. I hope I am wrong; but I have my suspicions. Saying there is nothing wrong with Pope Francis at that this late stage of the game is a bit like saying you don't have cancer when they are lying you in your coffin.
Padraig, I don't believe that is what Jimmy Akin is saying though, "there is nothing wrong with Pope Francis". He has his own blog where he has spoken of some of the issues with the pope but I do believe that he is lighter handed than others have been on the pope. You could be correct about Catholic Answers and how they get paid. I am a little put off by what seems to me like a competition sometimes between the authors of Catholic books. I mean they are working for their money too, so if they take a swipe at someone else who is an author might they be doing so to sell their own wares and so people don't buy the other guy's but theirs, idk. I am glad that at the end of that long Taylor Marshall video that he makes a point to say that if you believe that the pope is a heretic than you would not be in communion with the Church. This too is why I believe that others like Jimmy Akin, Raymond Arroyo, Fr. Joseph Fessio and Mark Brumley etc. are being very careful about this. Here are some of Jimmy Akin's writings about Pope Francis, mainly because Praetorian asked for them. I like Jimmy Akin because he does appear to be very knowledgeable about the our Faith but I think only God has the answers some of the questions that we are asking. Cardinal Muller on Amoris Laetitiae: 12 things to know and share Pope Francis on Invalid Marriages ... 11) What should we make of all this? The fact Pope Francis made the remark in the first place is a source for concern, and it should prompt him to reflect on and re-evaluate the way he answers questions in public, for this is far from the first time something like this has happened when he has answered questions off the cuff. We may be thankful that there was sufficient presence of mind on the part of those around the pope to propose the change to the official version of the remarks, and we may be thankful that the pope approved the change. Given the amount of confusion regarding the marriage issue, both in society and in Church circles, I suggest we keep the matter in prayer... Why the Holy See Issues Non-Magisterial Statements Pope Francis on Intercommunion with Lutherans I also like Taylor Marshall's advice at the end of his video which is to be in a state of grace and pray the rosary daily, etc. Ultimately, we really only need to watch about a minute of the following video from Taylor Marshall from about the 1:11:35 to 1:12:35 marks where he gives the same advice that Our Blessed Mother has been giving us for many, many years. I just saved you and everyone else here an hour, so instead of watching the above video we can pray a whole rosary. I hope that I'm not appearing to be too cranky in my posts from last night and today, I'm a little exhausted. I apologize if I am coming off like my patience is wearing thin.
I actually agree with some of what Mr. Akin said. Having looked at what the authors of this latest document have said I think they went too far declaring the Pope a heretic. They do not have the authority for that. I think they could have written a letter containing most of the information that they included and asked the bishops of the world to look into it. That would have been enough. They know full well that no bishop or cardinal is going to touch this. I think Mr. Akin is wrong when he tried to portay them as not even undertsanding basic theology. These are very learned men with great reputations. I disagree that Mr. Akin is just playing it cool and keeping his personal opinions to himself. If he is doing that and he thinks that there is a heresy machine in the hierarchy, but is keeping it to himself while defending them, then that is worse than being oblivious. When I am discerning what side someone is on I ask myself "Could this person get a job in the current Vatican? I am sure Mr. Akin would be welcomed with open arms. I also disagree with your last statement that peasants with pitchforks aren't going to help. In fact that seems just about the only thing that is waking people up at this point. I thank God for people Like Patrick Coffin, Dr. Marshall, etc. Give me more peasants. The hierarchy isn't doing anything substantive. Patrick Coffin has not made a statement on this yet to my knowledge, but here is his Youtube link and I expect him to have some comment in the coming days: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWzifzT03gicvPKve7QrqSg/videos
P., I meant that Mr. Akin appears to be far less emotional than say you or I for instance and he should be because his blog touches far more people than when we blog. I don't mean this as a dig to you or myself, it just makes sense that he has more concerns about what he says than we do. I didn't mean that he is holding back on any facts. I like Patrick Coffin, Dr. Marshall, Michael Matt etc. also. I think that all of these men are truly concerned for the future of the church. I was not referring to them as peasants with pitchforks, I mean that we need to control our emotions and not become unruly to either Pope Francis or someone like Jimmy Akin etc. We need to control our emotions as best that we can although we may not have the following that Jimmy Akin or these other men have we still need to be careful about what we post. This is a very serious situation and we shouldn't forget that. If someone was to do something grave, I don't want to have regrets about something I stated on a blog in regard to the pope or anyone else for that matter.
