Prominent clergy, scholars accuse Pope Francis of heresy in open letter

Padraig, Thank you for reposting this, this is a must watch!

Chris Coulombe mentions that he will have a followup video coming out after he has thoroughly read the open letter. I am looking forward to his analysis.

***

Edited to add:



***

This is interesting, it seems that there are many more signatures now.


https://gloria.tv/article/QPiMiQdtcWbt2yg7sNYKVGzjf

***

You click on the following link to read the whole petition and sign it if you choose to do so,
https://www.change.org/p/the-colleg...r-heresy-bcce228e-da31-42d5-96cb-d10d398cc6bc .

...

***

In the following video, Anthony Stine provides some insight in regard to Ed Condon's tweet* about the possible use of Canon Law 1372 against the signatories. I actually posted a tweet from Father Pertri about this above. Mr. Stine basically states that they have taken 1372 out of context but he doesn't mention the other Canon Law, 1373, that Father Petri mentioned in the same tweet. (?)



"Anthony P. Stine is a doctoral candidate at Portland State University where he is writing his dissertation on Catholic Social Teaching. Until recently he was on the staff of St. Gregory's University in Shawnee, Oklahoma and calls Oklahoma home." Crisis Magazine

St. Francis is my confirmation saint too just like Mr. Stine. Francis was my dad's middle name and I'm glad that my older son chose St. Francis as his patron too.

*

 

Thanks Dolours for the info. I don't think Akin has a doctorate in anything.

The issue over if a Pope can be a heretic is one the Church hasn't definitively decided upon. Many saints, popes, and doctors of the Church have spoken on the issue saying it might be possible though. The problem is, though they admit it might be possible, there is nothing written into canon law as to how to proceed if the situation arises. Additionally the problem in the Church that an inferior cannot judge a superior exists, so although Pope Honorius was condemned, that was by another pope (his equal).

So I think the catch-22 we are in is this: We must wait until the next pontificate or for a Church council to be held to iron these things out and decide if a pope can definitively be a heretic and if so, what recourse if any the Church has to deal with him. The problem with that is that a Pope Maradiaga, Pope Cupich, or Pope Marx is most likely not going to do any such thing. And we are probably not going to have a Pope Burke or Pope Schneider any time soon, which means we are on a runaway train.

 

I agree that there is nothing defined on what to do about a Pope who has fallen into heresy. Given the Church's teaching on free will, I don't know how anyone could claim that it isn't possible for a Pope to be a heretic. That said, the Pope certainly has the authority to bind and loose. Fr. Fessio posed the question as to what would happen if a Pope were to, say, get married or convert to another religion like Islam. If nobody has the authority to depose a Pope, then not only could a Pope convert to Islam and get married, he could have multiple wives.

Fr. James Martin said something recently about Old Testament references to marriage - I think the inference was about bigamy being permitted although, knowing what he's like, Church recognition of same sex marriage was most likely what he was promoting (conveniently ignoring what Jesus said about marriage). There's nothing to stop our homo-heavy episcopacy electing him Pope. What if a Pope Martin declared that the Holy Spirit had led him to declare that a Pope could marry, have mulpile spouses, and not necessarily of the opposite sex? Could he and Bishops in Communion with him declare that to be official Church teaching per the ordinary magisterium? Do our Bishops really believe that God wouldn't expect them to get off their backsides and do something to put a stop to that? Are we all expected to believe that there would be no need for the Bishops to do anything because God would send lighning bolts from heaven, zapping Pope Martin and his spouses? Somehow, I don't think that's how things are meant to be.

I read a tweet from a well know Canon Lawyer (can't recall which one) saying something about obstinate heresy being extremely difficult to prove.

These surely are interesting times. I'm blue in the face praying for Pope Francis. Think I might get better results asking God to protect the men who wrote the letter.

 

I think the thinking of those who say the Pope cannot teach heresy is that he would be struck dead before he attempted to do that. I'm not saying that is correct, I'm just saying that is the argument. That would not contradict free will or the inviolability of papal teaching.

Pertinacity may be hard to prove. I don't know, this is all new to us, even to professionals.

I think what we are witnessing right now is just how far God has gone through all of the centuries to not only preserve infallible papal teaching, but almost all papal teachings. Just because God has gone to extraordinary lengths in the past though does not necessarily mean that what is happening now invalidates this pontificate.

Somebody may be an upstanding person their whole life then snap and kill someone when they are sixty. Just because they were a nice person earlier in life doesn't mean it is impossible for them to commit murder. It just means they have not done it up until that point.

 

I just read the following and since it is indirectly related to this thread I'm posting it here.

Dolours, This might be what you were referring to in your post above.

Correcting Fr Martin….Yet Again

Fr James (Slippery Jim) Martin SJ is being Jesuitical again.

Here’s his latest tweet in response to Franklin Graham:



Where does one even start?

First I should say that this post is not a comment on homosexuality per se. I have no opinion on that matter other than the teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

What I would like to comment on is Fr Martin’s deceitful use of language.

First he says “Being gay is not a sin.” Yes. We all agree that experiencing same sex attraction is not a sin. I’m sure Franklin Graham also agrees with this. Fr Martin knows that we agree with him on this, but without saying so, he conflates “Being gay” with gay sexual activity. How do I know this? Because Fr Martin supports New Ways Ministry and one of their constant refrains is, “You can’t pretend to accept gay people if you do not accept the way they love.”

He knows “being gay” for the vast majority of his readers means “living gay.” He is quite content to use fuzzy language in order to blur the distinctions.

Second, he states the lie that God makes people gay. The genesis of the homosexual condition is, no doubt, complex and clearly many people who are attracted to people of the same sex truly believe they were born that way. While one ought to respect their feelings it is also true that their feelings do not match the facts.

Answering Mayor Buttigieg’s idea that God made him gay, Tony Esolen speaks with simple common sense on this matter here:

Let’s reason this out. What can he mean by that little word, made? I look at a shovel. It has a long wooden handle and a pointed and scooped iron blade. It is made for digging. It is not for serving casserole or cleaning earwax. I look at a man and a woman. Unless I am a babe or a man from Mars, I know that they are made for one another. No one has a reproductive system. Everybody has half of one. Men have this half, and women have that half. No man is made for the depositing of the seed of life into a pot of hydrochloric acid or a sewer.

Third, what’s this “and be careful about Bible literalism…”? You mean every verse of the Bible can’t be taken literally? Really? Oh! We never knew that before. Gosh! Gee! We’d better let Franklin Graham and all the other Bible Christians know that! Thanks Father Jim for letting us all know that!

Geesh! how patronizing is that? With one smug comment Slippery Jim makes out that Franklin Graham (and anyone else who refers to Scriptural teaching on homosexuality) must be a redneck, hillbilly snake handlin’ kind of hootin’ and hollerin’ banjo playin’ fundamentalist.

Well I grew up with fundamentalists and even the most basic of them knew you didn’t have to take every verse in the Bible literally.

He then uses this sophomoric trick of relativizing Scripture by referring to details from the out of date Old Testament legal code. Oh, Yes, what a giggle! It says in Leviticus that we mustn’t eat shrimp and lobster or pork chops or bacon! He forgot the other ones from the New Testament about how women should not braid their hair or wear gold jewelry. (I Peter 3:3-4; I Timothy 2:9)

Then he attempts to relativize the clear teaching of Scripture and the church on marriage by referring to the multiple wives of the patriarchs.

In fact there are rather simple principles for determining what parts of the Bible are not to be literally interpreted.

The first is that the Bible interprets the Bible. In the gospels Jesus sets aside all the dietary laws of the Old Testament (Mark 7:19) and he clearly corrects the bigamy of the patriarchs.(Mt 19:4-5) To be valid and applicable a moral teaching must be found not just in one verse, but be supported by the rest of Scripture. So we see that St Peter’s vision in Acts 10 sets aside the dietary laws and this is affirmed by St Paul in I Corinthians and I Timothy 4:4.

This is also the case on Christ’s teaching on monogamous heterosexual marriage. It is supported by the writings of St Paul in Ephesians, and the Old Testament prohibition on sex between men is reiterated in Romans, I Corinthians and I Timothy. Finally, the principles of interpreting Scripture for Catholics (we are not Bible Alone Christians) is that the Scriptures are also interpreted correctly by the Church.

Slippery Jim’s attempts to relativize the Scriptural and universal teaching of the church on marriage with a smug tweet ought to be corrected by someone other than me, but if no one else is going to…

Stop. I thought the Jesuits were not only smart, but well educated.

I get it that the Bible is not a strong suit for many Catholics but is it possible that this Jesuit is so poorly educated that he doesn’t understand these principles of interpretation which any student in Bible 101 would have picked up?

We can only conclude that he is, in fact, very poorly educated in which case, why is he a Vatican communications go to guy?

The only other option is that he does know these things but he is being intentionally deceitful.

Dwight Longenecker2019-04-26T18:20:45-04:00April 26th, 2019|Categories: Blog|5 Comments​

 

Yes, that's what some people say. I don't think it's good enough for Bishops to fail in their duty to safeguard the Deposit of Faith. It's like giving the Bishops an excuse to do nothing - a get out of jail free card.

It sounds like clericalism.

P.S. to Carol: Yes, that's what I was referring to. Thanks for finding it.

 

To say that God made some people gay is blasphemy and contradicts Catholic teaching.

 

Dolours, You're welcome. I actually just finished reading the article when I read your post.

***

I just read the following good news.

Remember that censorship list for news sources, I believe that the Vatican was responsible for having it implemented.

Well, the list has been removed as of now until they come up with a better way. It's better than nothing!

Letter from the Editor | https://www.poynter.org/letter-from-the-editor/2019/letter-from-the-editor/
May 2, 2019 Barbara Allen
Category: Letter from the Editor

Dear readers:

On Tuesday, April 30, Poynter posted a list of 515 “unreliable” news websites, built from pre-existing databases compiled by journalists, fact-checkers and researchers around the country. Our aim was to provide a useful tool for readers to gauge the legitimacy of the information they were consuming.

Soon after we published, we received complaints from those on the list and readers who objected to the inclusion of certain sites, and the exclusion of others. We began an audit to test the accuracy and veracity of the list, and while we feel that many of the sites did have a track record of publishing unreliable information, our review found weaknesses in the methodology. We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report.

Therefore, we are removing this unreliable sites list until we are able to provide our audience a more consistent and rigorous set of criteria. The list was intended to be a starting place for readers and journalists to learn more about the veracity of websites that purported to offer news; it was not intended to be definitive or all encompassing. We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication. We pledge to continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards.

— Barbara Allen, managing editor, Poynter.org
​

P., Yep, that's the consensus for sure.

 

Dolours,your comparison of Luther judging the first see and noting how hypocritical it would be for FRANCIS to take action against him, the current occupant of the same was spot on. Perhaps Francis should consider a similar stamp honoring the good men who penned this letter about him.

If technically, these honorable and prominent catholic men who authored the letter in question do not have the authority to issue a conclusion as to a charge of heresy, then I guess we can “expect “ the bishops to issue

What about Pope Benedict?

 

Pope Emeritus Benedict has no more power now than a regular cardinal. Less in fact because he is retired. He does hold a lot of clout though and if he spoke people would listen, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for him to do anything.

My guess is that no one will do anything about the heresy charges. To all appearances what the faithful bishops seem to have decided to do is wait this pope out. They will be here after he is gone. That is just my educated guess though.

They may do some interventions as they have been for the past few years, but I would be surprised if they did anything as forward as what we just witnessed with the open letter to the bishops. The only exception I see to this is if Pope Francis does something so blatant that there is no wiggling out of it, such as ordaining women to the priesthood or blessing same sex "unions" or something of that nature. Then I think we might see a small group of maybe 5-20 bishops and cardinals stand up and speak. Short of that I would be extremely surprised.

Conversely, Cardinal Burke and others may also be sitting and waiting, biding their time. As we all see, with each passing week the Modernists grow bolder and bolder. The faithful cardinals and bishops may be waiting until they do something so outrageous that there is no way out of it. Like fishing and letting out some line before reeling back in. This is sort of a cynical tactic perhaps, but drastic times call for drastic measures.

 

Pope Benedict won't say anything. Anyway he's 92 years old. I don't think it would be right for people to bother him about it now.

I'm curious as to what would happen if the priests were charged with a crime under canon law. Presumably they would have the right to defend themselves and call witnesses for cross examination. Are witnesses (Bishops or priests) obliged to co-operate?

 

Pope Benedict appears to be in a certain amount of restraint. I read a letter from Dr Moynihan , apparently he had to do a certian amount of circumvention to get his recent statement released in case it was suppressed. I am at work now but will try to post this. Poor man. But he did get it published, he must have had help. The Vaticna Press Office is staffed by some very bad honchos.

Bad times.

 

Ahh my mistake. Dr Moynihan reports Pope Benedicts Statement here:

https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-15-2019-benedict-speaks-on-the-crisis/

It was I think the Catholic herald that reports Bendict had to circumvent censorship to get it published, otherwise it would have been buried. I wil ltry to find a link.

 

Fr. Rutler puts the smackdown on Jimmy Akin's belittling response to the authors of the letter to the bishops.

 

I still would like to know what, if any, credentials Mr. Akin has. As Fr. Rutler puts it, he seems shy about posting his qualifications beyond 1 year at an unnamed college. I guess that's better than "piano teacher" though.

 

Do I need to go to confession if I took entirety too much enjoyment from this post?

 

Well at least they are making improvements in the qualifications of their spokesmen

I don't think confession is in order. I am fast coming to the opinion that we who live today are far too soft and forgiving of these snakes who are wandering amid the sheep. Catholics of the past would not have put up with these traitorous infiltrators for an instant. It's time for a purging of the Modernists.

 

Yeah, I’ve had this opinion for years now, but have kinda gone silent about it because it’s not always a popular position. Too judgmental or pharisaical or “the prodigal son’s older brother” or “you can’t judge a pope” or some such.

History will not judge us kindly.

 

To be clear I was calling for a purging of the Modernists but not saying I have the power to do it. I have no power to declare anyone in the hierarchy a heretic, and I am not doing so. In my statement I was more meaning it is high time that the Modernists are thrown from power. The jig is up so to speak. They have exposed their wickedness and that is the hidden blessing in all of this. If there are snakes I would rather have them out where I can see them than in hiding like they were just a few years ago.