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

Yes, I think someone warned recently to keep cool and not to get angry and insulting (it might have been Fr Rutler). Such wise advise.

Although historically in the past when heresy and schism rears its ugly head even great saints and Popes have been known to go crazy. My ideal is St Francis De Sales who said you catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than a barrel of salt. I think rants and getting angry is self indulgent..as is name calling.

It seems enough to me to defend the truth by speaking it without getting personal. The truth is weapon enough.

 

Well said.

 

Yes the world is a tinder box. But everyone sleeps.

 

The reality we can all see is that darkness and evil is spreading rapidly as never before --

Our world is heading towards catastrophe --

And we have a Pope who is concerned with global warming

I do not mean to be disrespectful for he is Pope but he is a lame-duck leader.

He has the power to stop the rot but refuses to use it!!

He has deliberately created a mess in the Church and as the Church goes so does the world. So we are headed towards disaster when he will be forced to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for it will look like we will all perish!!

 

Yes charity in all things, but we must remember that teaching heresy is soul-murder. I believe St. Thomas Aquinas advocated the death penalty for it. It is that serious. More serious even than murder, for murder only ends a life, but leading someone into error leads to the damnation of that soul forever. Can there be a greater crime?

As our member Picadillo often cites, false teaching is a soul crematorium.

 

Well things seem to be gathering very great pace:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...ing-on-bishops-to-investigate-pope-for-heresy

 

I do see your point. Do their qualifications grant these men the valid authority to publicly accuse the Pope of formal heresy? What is the reasoning behind this accusation being published publicly? All it seems to accomplish is to further roil and divide the body of the church. Is that the goal?
Their charge, the research and support for it theologically and academically can and IMO should have been carried out and taken to a bishop without dragging the public through the details of it. We all know that the church is not a democracy where swaying public opinion and populism has any affect on the job of the pope.
Akin's credentials or lack of them seriously make no difference IMO. He isn't making a public formal accusation against a Roman Pontiff. He as well as any Catholic has every right to question these men, because it was they who brought their accusation to the public square. Although their educational accomplishments are certainly respectable and not to be disregarded they hold not a shred of valid authority over Pope Francis, Akin, or any of us. Pope Francis will not answer their charges publicly, nor should he, and they know it.

 

Why do you think he has taken up global warming as a cause?

 

Clearly the consecration of Russia is not on Pope Francis's liberal agenda. At this point we do need to pray hard for him as it will truly take a devine intervention. I am going to start praying to Pope Francis's guardian angel, who certainly has his work cut out for him.

 

Perhaps I did not make my point clear. I am not backing this letter accusing the Pope of heresy. I am not qualified enough to understand all of the extrememly detailed nuances of this issue, nor are any of us here. Nor was I saying that Mr. Akin or anybody else had no right to question these men. Of course they do. Fr. Weinandy wrote a very good letter today in which he thinks they were wrong to accuse the Pope. It is probably close to my position.

My point was merely directed at Jimmy Akin, who belittled these men and spoke of them having inadequate credentials, when he in fact is apparently a first year college drop out. So yes, they should be questioned, but I am against slander and character assassination in an attempt to discredit them. Those who dwell in glass houses shouldn't brandish slingshots.

To answer your questions:

Do their qualifications grant these men the valid authority to publicly accuse the Pope of formal heresy?

I honestly do not know and neither do you, nor anyone here. No one judges the First See is written into canon law, but there is a strong history in the Church that says no one judges the First See unless he has deviated from the faith. Then, the argument goes, we can recongize that he has passed judgement upon himself by leaving the faith. This may be debatable by theologians, I do not know.

What is the reasoning behind this accusation being published publicly?

The public statement was to warn the faithful and bring attention to the issue. Many are asleep and have no idea what is going on. If you have been following the process, this is not the first letter, but the last of three that began in 2016 when they went to the Pope privately and asked that he clarify his teaching on these confusing issues, he apparently ignored their requests for clarification.

All it seems to accomplish is to further roil and divide the body of the church. Is that the goal?

They stated their reasons, you may disagree with them, but the intent was of course not to divide the Church. If we are worried about dividing the Church who is the guilty party? Those doing the dividing or those recognizing that there is division? If there is division it did not originate with these men.

 

Spitting on people, raging, swearing can very well be demonic in origin.

 

Greatly inspired

 

Before Pope Francis was accused of heresy, Catholics reached out to him numerous times
By Maike Hickson | https://www.lifesitenews.com/all/to...y-catholics-reached-out-to-him-numerous-times

May 7, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The April 30 Open Letter to Bishops has caused much discussion among Catholic circles. The authors of the letter have appealed to the bishops of the world, for the sake of the salvation of souls, “as our spiritual fathers, vicars of Christ within your own jurisdictions and not vicars of the Roman pontiff, publicly to admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies that he has professed.” Some of the heresies they name flow out of the Pope's post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, on marriage and the family, and which opened the path to many episcopal guidelines now allowing “remarried” divorcees to receive Holy Communion contrary to perennial Church teaching.

Some Catholic commentators have argued against this Open Letter with the claim that Pope Francis deserves the benefit of the doubt with regard to some of the papal quotations as they are presented by the Open Letter. As Father Thomas Petri, O.P., for example, stated:

I’m disappointed that a group of theologians, some of whom I admire, chose to express themselves by contributing to a letter calling the Pope a heretic. Their citations of him can be all interpreted in a way that gives the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, which we owe him.​

In a similar manner, other commentators have asked whether the authors have ever first contacted the Pope privately, or whether they first went to their own bishops with their objections. For example, the Vice-President for the Center of Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), Stefano Gennarini stated on twitter:

I only want to know one thing. Did any of the folks on this list even try to express their concerns with His Holiness privately, through their bishops, or even publicly, before inciting others to schism [sic].​

These are objections that should be faced and discussed. Since we are in the middle of an unprecedented situation in the history of the Catholic Church, reasonable people can come to different conclusions here. It must be remembered that during the time of the 14th-century anti-popes there were saints on both sides.

Leila Marie Lawler, wife of Catholic commentator and book author Phil Lawler, commented on this ongoing discussion on Twitter, saying: “Worst take: 'Give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt' – as if criticism is personal and not about objective issues, the defense of which he has ultimate responsibility. Instead, protect those 'little ones' exposed to error and its corrosions,” adding in her follow-up Tweet: “The 'benefit of the doubt' defense has been used from Day One of this pontificate. Where is charity for the little ones?”

In light of this piercing comment, it is worthwhile bringing to mind just how many Catholics, as children of God, have called out to the Pope for clarifications, corrections and help, and how many learned Catholics – cardinals, bishops, priests and laymen alike – have issued, during the last six years, pleas to Pope Francis himself.

This list of initiatives taken under Pope Francis' pontificate was started on Twitter by this author, and then substantially enriched by others, such as Leila Lawler and Julia Meloni. The list is now very long, and it will prove how many chances Pope Francis has received to respond to accusations of his allegedly heterodox teachings.

In March of 2013, Pope Francis was elected. In February of 2014, he asked Cardinal Walter Kasper to give a speech to the College of Cardinals, in which he presented his idea to give Holy Communion to some “remarried” divorcees. This speech was hotly discussed at the consistory, with perhaps about 85% of the attending cardinals opposing Kasper's progressive ideas, according to a report by Marco Tosatti.

This event – together with Pope Francis' announcement of a two-fold Synod of Bishops on Marriage and the Family in 2014 and 2015 – inspired the first public attempts at preserving the Church's traditional teaching.

What follows is a non-exhaustive list of 20 direct attempts by clergy and laity to reach Pope Francis for clarification. Following this is a list of indirect attempts.

... [Please click on the link above to read the entire article.]

Pope Francis has not responded

This written record of some of the major charitable and urgent initiatives taken by prelates, priests, academics, and earnest laymen is by far not exhaustive, but it sheds light on the many beautiful manifestations of a loyal witness to the Faith that were meant to be pleas both to Pope Francis to amend his ways, as well as to cardinals and bishops to help him decisively act in this regard.

However, Pope Francis has not responded in any visible and clear way – nor met with those who have called upon him (not even with the four dubia cardinals) – to all of these initiatives, except for the recent meeting with Bishop Schneider which, nonetheless, was finally without any clear and unequivocal results.

Despite these pleas, Pope Francis appears to be continuing his course of obstinately revolutionizing the Catholic Church at the cost of doctrinal orthodoxy and her moral clarity.

 

He’s telegraphing his decision regarding female deacons. Will this wake up our bishops?

 

If only that were all; first women deacons, then women priests, then married priests, then homosexual married priests.. and on and on and on and on...there will be no end to it.

This is exactly what happened in the Protestant Sects. One thing after another, inch by inch.

 

Yep, it´s called the Overton Window. Leftists have been applying it for over a century.

It seems this is exactly the Vatican´s strategy to implement gradual change that will eventually become irreversible (but, of course, prophecy tells us that God may disagree and eventually intervene.)

"The Overton window is a term for the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse, also known as the window of discourse. The term is named after Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians' individual preferences.[1][2] According to Overton, the window contains the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office in the current climate of public opinion."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

 

I never heard of this before, thank you. I suppose you could call it the thin end of the wedge, or getting your foot in the door. Once you concede the Principle of something you have not just lost the Battle , but you have lost the war.

A good example of this is abortion. Campaigners at first called for it in extreme cases were the women's life is supposed to be in danger (although this virtually never happens). This gives a foot in the door. Nowadays they are talking about killing just born infants.

It was the same with homosexual , 'Rights' which at first consisted in them not being thrown into prison but now these , 'Rights' consist of just about everything you can ever think of. They never end.

There is no way women Deacons will be the end of it. The path goes Women Deacons, then women priests, then women Bishops, then women Cardinals, then of course women Popes. This is no accident , there is an Agenda for Change for all this from the beginning. This is part of the Revolution of Mercy.

However a female clergy is only a very,very small part of the over all plan.
The basis for all this is a Masonic view of the Church which views it not as Mystical/ supernatural but transforming it to a Social/Political, Liberal Leftist construct.

An example of this is in regarding sexual sins not as a sin and more on the lines of doing your own thing.

The Real sins are things like Global Warming, stopping migration , Capitalism, and so on.

God still exists in this thought system but in a kind of Deus ex Machina kind of way. God is up there (maybe in a kind of way0 but not in a way that makes much difference. We're down here and it's up to us to get on with it.

Like I say it's Clerical Freemasonary. Creating a Revolutionary, 'New ', Church.

Pope Francis to his credit has been quite open about this. He calls this the, 'Revolution of Mercy'; it's no big secret.

 

I'll tell you one good way to spot a priest or Bishop who buys into this stuff. Mention saying the rosary or an Apparition Site like say Fatima. Stand back and wait for the eyes to start rolling. They might not literally roll but there'll be some equivalent. What they'll be basically thinking is, 'Is this guy for real?' Then if you watch closely you'll see their hand looking for the Ejector Switch lever to get away from your company as quick as possible. It's as though you had a sign over you head labelled, 'Nut job'.

 

Considering the serious nature of the document I disagree with your opinion on Akin's demeanor. I do not get the impression that Akin was belittling, slandering or taking part in the character assassination of these men. I don't think that he was unfair. If anyone realizes his own limitations in the academic realm it is Akin himself. I'm sure that he is well aware that he would be a transparent hypocritical fool to do this and could easily be taken to task for it. I Agree to disagree on that.
The last time I can think of someone formally judging the pope Martin Luther and the resulting disaster comes to mind. The pope can ignore these requests at his judgement. I have taken this as him being deliberately obstinate. I don't know if that is right or wrong. I have no idea his reasoning behind the decisions he has made not to answer these questions but in all charity and faith I give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that God will not allow His Church to be led astray by the very rock He built it upon in spite of how confusing the times have become.
I also don't think that there are many people who are not aware of what is happening with the church and Pope Francis's decisions any longer. These things are being splashed across mainstream news regularly and although it is incidental my own very non practicing Protestant family members have brought these subjects up as veiled insults. As if by doing so they can prove the church is not what Christ said it was because of the frailty of men.
Pope Francis has obviously been the most divisive pope in a very long time if not ever. I am not going to start deciding guilt over his actions even personally however because I am not the judge of the church or of popes. I believe the promise that Jesus made to it.
Putting aside personal opinions, the men who wrote and signed this document had to have also seriously considered the impact it would have when it was published. I trust that they most likely weighed carefully the opposing consequences and decided that they were doing a service by doing so in spite of the dangers. They had to have also considered that this letter could contribute toward more division in the church.
I can see why this sort of thing is such a major issue because the thought of it gives me mental vapor lock.