Pope Francis is obviously guilty of material heresy. The examples are almost too numerous to count at this point. The question about the continued legitimacy of his papacy revolves around whether he has crossed the line from simple material heresy into grave manifest heresy. This video seems to be proof of the latter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_heresy Material heresy In Catholic theology, the term material heresy refers to an opinion objectively contradictory to the teachings of the Church, which as such is heretical, but which is uttered by a person without the subjective knowledge of its being so. A person who holds a material heresy may therefore not be a "heretic" in the strict sense. Material heresy is distinguished from "formal heresy", i.e. a heretical opinion proposed deliberately by a person who is aware of its being against the doctrine of the Church. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/formal_heresy Noun formal heresy (plural formal heresies) (Roman Catholicism) The teaching or expression of an opinion in the conscious knowledge that it is contradictory to the teachings of the Church, and as such heretical. 1. Formal versus material heresy. This is a distinction pertaining to the objective statusof doctrinal propositions. A heresy is any proposition opposed to any dogma. Two things are required for a doctrine to be dogma: (1) it must be contained in divine revelation and (2) it must be proposed as such by the Church (either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium). If both of these requirements are met, then the doctrine is a formal dogma, and the denial of such a dogma is a formal heresy. If a doctrine is contained in divine revelation but has not yet been proposed as such by the Church, then it can be called a “material dogma”. Such was the case with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the patristic and medieval periods. Material heresy is the denial of a material dogma. 2. Formal versus material heretic. This is a distinction pertaining to the subjective culpability of persons. A heretic is a person who believes or teaches heresy. A material heretic is a person who believes or teaches something which is objectively a heresy; a formal heretic is one who continues to do so obstinately after having been duly corrected.
This is from six years ago. Things have only gotten worse. https://onepeterfive.com/cardinal-burke-a-pope-who-professes-formal-heresy-would-cease-to-be-pope/ Cardinal Burke: A Pope Who Professes Formal Heresy Would Cease to Be Pope Steve Skojec December 21, 2016 151 Comments In an interview published this week at Catholic World Report, Cardinal Burke (who gave the Interview on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception) sounds like he’s feeling a bit feisty. Referencing a statement he made in 2004 about “always getting into trouble” after confronting pro-abortion Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry on the issue of receiving communion, the interviewer asked if this was still the case. Burke responded,”I suppose that’s true, but I trust it’s good trouble.” The interviewer then cut to the chase: CWR: When was last time a Pope was rebuked? Cardinal Burke: As far as I know, and I’m not an expert in this, it was John XXII. He was corrected for a wrong teaching he had on the beatific vision. CWR: And who did that? Cardinal Burke: There was a bishop involved and some Dominican Friars… CWR: Is there a Scriptural basis for rebuking a pope? Cardinal Burke: The classic Scriptural basis is St. Paul’s rebuking of Peter [in Galatians 2:11ff] for his accommodation of the Judaizers in the early Christian Church. Saint Paul confronted Peter to his face because he would be requiring things of the Gentile Christians that are not inherent to the Christian faith. And Peter actually agreed with that, but when he was with the Judaizers he would feign the other position and so Paul corrected him, as he said, to his face. CWR: Why do you think Amoris Laetitia chapter 8 is so ambiguous? Cardinal Burke: The reason for its ambiguity, it seems to me, is to give latitude to a practice which has never been admitted in the Church, namely the practice of permitting people who are living publicly in grave sin to receive the Sacraments. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below After discussing the origins of the dubia and the moral duty he and the others who wrote to Francis felt to dispel the confusion and refer to the Church’s ancient practices when dealing with complex moral situations, the conversation turned back to those prelates who are resisting the errors of the exhortation: CWR: Are there others, besides the four cardinals who submitted the dubia to Pope Francise, who support what you’re saying? Cardinal Burke: Yes. CWR: And they’re not speaking out because…? Cardinal Burke: For various reasons, one of which is the way the media takes these things and distorts them making it seem that anyone who raises a question about Amoris Laetitia is disobedient to the Pope or an enemy of the Pope and so forth. So they… CWR They’re keeping their heads down. Cardinal Burke: Yes, I suppose. CWR: One prelate has accused you and your fellow cardinals of being in heresy. How do you respond to that? Cardinal Burke: How can you be in heresy by asking honest questions? It’s just irrational to accuse us of heresy. We’re asking fundamental questions based upon the constant tradition of the Church’s moral teaching. So I don’t think there’s any question that by doing that we’ve done something heretical. CWR: Some critics say you are implicitly accusing the Pope of heresy. Cardinal Burke: No, that’s not what we have implied at all. We have simply asked him, as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, to clarify these five points that are confused; these five, very serious and fundamental points. We’re not accusing him of heresy, but just asking him to answer these questions for us as the Supreme Pastor of the Church. Some have taken his last point — that they are not accusing the pope of heresy — to mean that Burke and his collaborators in the dubia are softpedaling their approach to Francis. But I would counter that Burke is a very precise speaker, and that he is being technically accurate when he says this. They are not accusing Francis of heresy — yet. This is why it is imperative that he answer the questions. It would clarify the matter of whether he is, or is not, a heretic, and whether he needs to be corrected in the manner of Pope John XXII, mentioned by Burke above. There is evidence for my interpretation in the following section of the interview: CWR: Bishop Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C., the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan and titular bishop of Celerina, who has written an open letter of support for the four cardinals and their dubia, has also said that the Church is in a de facto schism. Do you agree with that? Cardinal Burke: There is a very serious division in the Church which has to be mended because it has to do with, as I said before, fundamental dogmatic and moral teaching. And if it’s not clarified soon, it could develop into a formal schism. CWR: Some people are saying that the pope could separate himself from communion with the Church. Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy? Cardinal Burke: If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen. CWR: That could happen. Cardinal Burke: Yes. con’t
Con’t CWR: That’s a scary thought. Cardinal Burke: It is a scary thought, and I hope we won’t be witnessing that at any time soon. As they say in the movies, “That’s not a threat, it’s a promise.” It’s not up to Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, or the rest of the faithful alliance of prelates whether or not the pope would lose his office through the profession of heresy. It’s merely a fact. One cannot simultaneously be a formal heretic and a pope. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below For Cardinal Burke to be able to answer these questions so openly and without nuance or equivocation means, I would venture to say, that he has already thought this all the way through and sees the path forward. How it will be received and what the consequences will be is not something with which he is concerning himself. Burke made his position on the matter clear last year, both when he said he would resist the pope if it came to it, and when he described the unfortunate situation that defending the “truth of the faith” has placed him in: “If this means that cardinals will be opposed to cardinals, then we simply have to accept the fact that…that that’s the situation which we find ourselves. Certainly for my part, I don’t look for this kind of conflict, but…if in defending the truth of the faith I end up in a disagreement or a conflict with another cardinal what has to be primary to me is the truth of the faith and to, as a teacher of the faith, as a pastor of souls, to defend that truth.” Asked about what would happen if the pope were found to be a heretic, Burke was forthright, again indicating that he has thought this through to the logical conclusion: CWR: Back to this question about the Pope committing heresy. What happens then, if the Pope commits heresy and is no longer Pope? Is there a new conclave? Who’s in charge of the Church? Or do we just not even want to go there to start figuring that stuff out? Cardinal Burke: There is already in place the discipline to be followed when the Pope ceases from his office, even as happened when Pope Benedict XVI abdicated his office. The Church continued to be governed in the interim between the effective date of his abdication and the inauguration of the papal ministry of Pope Francis. CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy? Cardinal Burke: It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals. CWR: Just to clarify again, are you saying that Pope Francis is in heresy or is close to it? Cardinal Burke: No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy. I have never said that. Neither have I stated that he is close to being in heresy. CWR: Doesn’t the Holy Spirit protect us from such a danger? Cardinal Burke: The Holy Spirit inhabits the Church. The Holy Spirit is always watching over, inspiring and strengthening the Church. But the members of the Church and, in a pre-eminent way, the hierarchy must cooperate with the promptings of the Holy Spirit. It is one thing for the Holy Spirit to be present with us, but it is another thing for us to be obedient to the Holy Spirit. The import of this interview is…staggering. It’s clear, serene, forceful, and completely unflinching. His Eminence does not say more than he should about the matter at its current stage, nor does he say less. There is a process, and he is following it to the letter, as should be unsurprising from a man with his understanding of ecclesiastical law. Canon law, of course, does not make provisions for such cases. On that matter, Pete Balkinski of LifeSiteNewsreferences American canonist Dr. Edward Peters on the legal questions before Burke, et. al.: According to Peters, who holds the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, canonical tradition has dealt with the possibility of a pope falling into personal heresy and promoting such heresy publicly and what should be done if this happens. Peters notes that while it is true that, as Canon 1404 states, “The First See is judged by no one,” thus making it impossible for anyone to remove an erring pope from his office, this does not mean that a pope in error retains his office. Peters quotes an interpretation of Canon 1404 by famous American canon lawyer Lawrence Wrenn to make the point. “Canon 1404 is not a statement of personal impeccability or inerrancy of the Holy Father. Should, indeed, the pope fall into heresy, it is understood that he would lose his office. To fall from Peter’s faith is to fall from his chair,” writes Wrenn in the 2001 New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. Peters writes that the “crucial question” from a canonist’s perspective is “who would determine whether a given pope has fallen into heresy,” a question he says that canon law is silent about, but not canonical tradition. Peters finds the canonical tradition expressed by Franz Wernz — a famed canonist who was elected as the Superior General of the Jesuit order in 1906 — who considered the impact of personal heresy on the part of a pope in his work Ius Canonicum. After laying out various positions dealing with a heretical pope and showing their deficiencies, Wernz speculates that while no one on earth can remove power from a pope since there is no higher office than “Roman Pontiff” that is capable of passing such judgment, nevertheless, a general council could determine that a pope had committed heresy, and in doing so, had effectually cut himself off from the true vine, thereby forfeiting his office. Writes Wernz in his work published posthumously in 1928: “In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact. Meanwhile a declaratory criminal sentence, although it is merely declaratory, should not be disregarded, for it brings it about, not that a pope is ‘judged’ to be a heretic, but rather, that he is shown to have been found heretical, that is, a general council declares the fact of the crime by which a pope has separated himself from the Church and has lost his rank.” After quoting Wernz, Peters comments: “I know of no author coming after Wernz who disputes this analysis.” Advertisement - Continue Reading Below Ladies and gentlemen, we have a front row seat to history in the making. Keep praying. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/quic...ccuses-pope-francis-canonical-derelict-heresy Letter signed by more than 1,500 accuses Pope Francis of the 'canonical delict of heresy' May 1, 2019 Pope Francis arrives for his general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican April 24. (CNS/Vatican Media) A group of Catholic scholars and priests has written an open letter to the College of Bishops accusing Pope Francis of heresy. The letter, published by LifeSiteNews April 30, accuses Francis of a "comprehensive rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexual activity, on the moral law, and on grace and the forgiveness of sins" and is framed as the third step in a process that began with a private letter to the cardinals and Eastern Catholic patriarchs in 2016. While the 2016 letter from a similar group pointed out "heresies and other serious errors" promoted by Francis' apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, and a 2017 "filial correction" asserted that Francis had "upheld" seven heretical positions, those signers stopped short of stating that the pope was guilty of heresy. The April 30 letter goes farther, accusing Francis of the "canonical delict* of heresy," which the writers define in their summary as when someone "knowingly and persistently denies something which he knows that the Church teaches to be revealed by God." They ask the bishops to publicly admonish Francis to "abjure" those heresies, including "repudiating and reversing" actions that have manifested heresy such as "nomination of bishops and cardinals who have supported these heresies by their words and actions." If Francis does not repent, the letter asks that the bishops declare that he has committed heresy and must "suffer the canonical consequences of this crime." Those consequences should include removal from office, the writers argue in a section after the signatures that discusses canon law and theology related to papal heresy. The letter's 19 signers include Dominican Fr Aidan Nichols; Georges Buscemi, president of Campagne Québec-Vie and member of the John-Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family; Maria Guarini of Pontificia Università Seraphicum in Rome; Brian McCall, a law professor and editor-in-chief of Catholic Family News; Anna Silvas, adjunct senior research fellow at the University of New England; John Rist; Robert Cassidy; Fr. Thomas Crean; Fr. John Hunwicke; Peter Kwasniewski; and John Lamont. A Change.org petition inviting additional signatures had added over 1,500 names by mid-morning May 1. Like the 2017 filial correction, the letter accuses Francis of seven heresies, including that people can intentionally break divine law in a serious matter without committing mortal sin, that sexual acts between divorced and remarried people "can sometimes be morally right," and that "God not only permits, but positively wills, the pluralism and diversity of religions." As evidence, they offer a list of Francis' public statements on the truths of the faith, many from Amoris Laetitia, as well as a list of actions the pope has taken that indicate belief in the heresies they list. Many of the "actions" are related to individuals that Francis assigned to important positions or that they allege he otherwise supported. They include those accused of committing or covering up acts of sexual abuse, such as former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick (whom Francis recently laicized for abuse of minors) and Chilean Bishop Juan Barros Madrid(whose resignation Francis accepted in June). Individuals who have expressed support for LGBT Catholics or have said divorced and remarried Catholics should be allowed to receive communion are also listed as evidence of Francis' heresy; they include Jesuit Fr. James Martin, Cardinal Blase Cupich and Cardinal Kevin Farrell. [Maria Benevento is an NCR Bertelsen intern. Her email address is mbenevento@ncronline.org.] *An earlier version of this story misstated "delict" as "derelict" Sent from my iPhone
I’m not posting much because I am truly confused about the current status of this pope. I honestly have real doubts about his legitimacy as pope, for the reasons above as well as other reasons, which simply cannot and should not be publicly discussed. So until I personally figure this out, I won’t be posting much here in the future either except regarding temporal things. FYI @padraig
I don't blame you Brian. Fr Malachi Martin warned of such a time as this. He said to pull the shades and lock the door and get down on our knees and beg God to save us because our faith is going to be shredded to bits if a man who was an apostate became pope. I don't know what Francis is. I don't dare to speculate. But I truly understand why this above document was written and signed. And I do feel as if we are all standing in high wind watching everything we treasure being blown away.
I suggest you study pre-VII theology, as there are too many Catholics online telling what you are supposed to think, who don't know theology themselves. There are many dogmatc and moral manuals and books on old and new canon law on archive.org. It will give you peace of mind.
Excellent video from Michael Matt this weekend: https://remnant-tv.com/video/641/pope-francis-nancy-pelosi-and-the-tyrannical-culture-of-death
I am a traditional Catholic. I follow traditional pre VII theologians, priests, professors, commentators etc. Universally they are gravely concerned about this pope and the current state of the Church. Complete immersion in pre VII theology and thought is crucial but it does not necessarily bring “peace” but alarm at this “ape of the Church” currently being erected.
The line has been crossed by this Vatican regime. Unfortunately we do not fully comprehend the significance of this simple fact.
What a time to be alive in. But we are all called to be here at this present moment. It’s hard enough to navigate these times for myself. Yet if I could be so bold as to offer a bit of advice: it would be to take a step back. Yes, there are things gravely wrong. And yes, there very well may be sinister plotting at work. But at the end of the day, thank the Lord that your eyes are opened to it. And try to be a beacon of hope to the lost. We aren’t called to be Cardinals, obviously. So we aren’t the ones that can do anything to straighten this mess out (if they can even do anything about it - which is doubtful). What we can do is suffer and offer reparation while trying to make sure as many people get into the boat as possible. This is our role, and how we will assist in the victory. Be at peace, this is bigger than you and I. The One who sits on the throne, through the intersession of His Mother, will see to it that His Church will be restored to all of its glory. Prayers your way, and all on this forum - past, present, and future.
The problems are so enormous in the Church, the rot so deep, the crisis so widespread --- humanly to there is no solution - But our Lady has been working overtime to galvanise her army of Blue Warriors and there is a remnant, a very powerful remnant like the cedars of Lebanon, battle ready. Like David against Goliath, the victory and triumph of our Lady will stun the world and the Church when she calls her children into battle, her little ones, purified, made holy through suffering in the spiritual image of the Madonna. Ave Maria.
Yes! And this is what St Louis de Montfort foresaw 200 years ago. Our Lady in Quito Ecuador told us centuries ago how it would play out. And most recently in 1917 "My Immaculate Heart will triumph."
I don't reject VII. I reject all the heresies the infiltrators taught in the name of Vatican II. As far as I know Vatican II did not teach heresies but was worded in such a way that later on the infiltrators justified heresies by twisting what it said. Infiltrators did enter seminaries according to Bella Dodd. My own thought is that they will either make Catholics follow heresy justified in the false intepretations of Vatican II, or cause Catholics to conclude that Catholicism is false when the concentration of apostasy in the Vatican is too high. Also they want to engineer a schism and blame it on tradiitonalists and anyone holding it to tradition because they want to create a modern Church unmoored from Catholicism before Vatican II and excommunicate those who refuse as schismatics against Vatican II.
The peace of mind comes from understanding what schism really is. Many people will call you schismatic if you have doubts about him. Should I post a quote I found? Schism is a repudiation of legitimate authority, authority that no has any grounds to doubt. Disobedience, by itself, is not the same thing as schism, even if the pope commands it.
