FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Prominent theologians officially accuse Pope of heresey
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Just seen this on Lifesite. 20 page notice.

Sorry, I do not know how to link.

(If someone could take the time to pm me on how to do this I would be grateful
Here's the letter on document cloud: here

Text of the summary:

Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church: a summary

The Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church is the third stage in a process that began in the summer of 2016. At that time, an ad hoc group of Catholic clergy and scholars wrote a private letter to all the cardinals and Eastern Catholic patriarchs, pointing out heresies and other serious errors that appeared to be contained in or favoured by Pope Francis’s Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia. The following year, after Pope Francis had continued by word, deed, and omission to propagate many of these same heresies, a ‘Filial Correction’ was addressed to the pope by many of the same people, as well as by other clergy and scholars. This second letter was made public in September 2017, and a petition in support of it was signed by some 14,000 people. The authors of that letter stated however that they did not seek to judge whether Pope Francis was aware that he was causing heresy to spread.

The present Open letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church goes a stage further in claiming that Pope Francis is guilty of the crime of heresy. This crime is committed when a Catholic knowingly and persistently denies something which he knows that the Church teaches to be revealed by God. Taken together, the words and actions of Pope Francis amount to a comprehensive rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexual activity, on the moral law, and on grace and the forgiveness of sins.

The Open letter also indicates the link between this rejection of Catholic teaching and the favour shown by Pope Francis to bishops and other clergy who have either been guilty of sexual sins and crimes, such as former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, or who have protected clergy guilty of sexual sins and crimes, such as the late Cardinal Godfried Danneels. This protection and promotion of clerics who reject Catholic teaching on marriage, sexual activity, and on the moral law in general, even when these clerics personally violate the moral and civil law in horrendous ways, is consistent enough to be considered a policy on the part of Pope Francis. At the least it is evidence of disbelief in the truth of Catholic teaching on these subjects. It also indicates a strategy to impose rejection of these teachings on the Church, by naming to influential posts individuals whose personal lives are based on violation of these truths.

The authors consider that a heretical papacy may not be tolerated or dissimulated to avoid a worse evil. It strikes at the basic good of the Church and must be corrected. For this reason, the study concludes by describing the traditional theological and legal principles that apply to the present situation. The authors respectfully request the bishops of the Church to investigate the accusations contained in the letter, so that if they judge them to be well founded, they may free the Church from her present distress, in accordance with the hallowed adage, Salus animarum prima lex (‘the salvation of souls is the highest law’). They can do this by admonishing Pope Francis to reject these heresies, and if he should persistently refuse, by declaring that he has freely deprived himself of the papacy.

While this Open letter is an unusual, even historic, document, the Church’s own laws say that “Christ's faithful have the right, and, indeed, sometimes the duty, according to their knowledge, competence, and dignity, to manifest to the sacred pastors their judgement about those things which pertain to the good of the Church” (Code of Canon Law, canon 212.3). While Catholics hold that a pope speaks infallibly in certain strictly defined conditions, the Church does not say that he cannot fall into heresy outside these conditions.

The signatories to the Open Letter include not only specialists in theology and philosophy, but also academics and scholars from other fields. This fits well with the central claim of the Open Letter, that Pope Francis’s rejection of revealed truths is evident to any well-instructed Catholic who is willing to examine the evidence. The signatures of Fr Aidan Nichols OP and of Professor John Rist will be noted. Fr Nichols is one of the best-known theologians in the English-speaking world, and the author of many books on a wide range of theological topics, including the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger. Professor Rist, who is known for his work in classical philosophy and the history of theology, has held chairs and professorships at the University of Toronto, the Augustinianum in Rome, the Catholic University of America, the University of Aberdeen, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The Open Letter is released just after the celebration of Holy Week and Easter Week, in the hopes that the present ‘passion’ of the Church will soon give way to a full resurrection of God’s saving truth. A selected bibliography to support the case made in the Open Letter concerning the heresies of Pope Francis has also been made available by the organizers.
At this point, I must admit that I am very, very confused.  To be clear, I am not confused about the Roman Catholic Church being the Church founded by Jesus Christ and through which the Truth is to be found.  But I’m very confused how we can have a heretical pope like this.  Maybe there’s something I’m not understanding, but here’s what is going on in my mind (I hope I’m incorrect on this): Pope Francis is teaching things that are heretical, like God willing the diversity of religions and that Catholics in adulterous civil “marriages” can be readmitted to the sacraments, including Holy Communion, without ending their adulterous activities.  Here’s where I get really confused.  Let’s say a Catholic accepts the pope’s teachings here.  He believes that God wants Hindus to be Hindus, Muslims to be Muslims, Jews to be Jews, etc., and since he’s obtained a civil divorce in a valid sacramental marriage, but since remarried civilly, he’s told that he can now receive Holy Communion.  Wouldn’t this man’s soul be in grave danger of eternal damnation, despite having followed what the Holy Father has taught and implemented in practice?  I hope I’m really misunderstanding things here.
(04-30-2019, 01:22 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldn’t this man’s soul be in grave danger of eternal damnation, despite having followed what the Holy Father has taught and implemented in practice?  

I would say that, in my humble opinion, you are correct.  

On a related topic... This past weekend I sat down with my parents and spoke with them together for the first time in a long time.  Beginning last summer, their 46-year marriage was on the rocks.  Long story.  But they are back together and prayers have been answered. Part of the problem was that my mother went to a priest.  Based upon this single conversation, and without the priest even attempting to speak with my father (whom I do not believe he's ever had a conversation with) or to get the two of them in a room to talk to them together, the priest told my mother that she was well within her rights to divorce, that she didn't have to go back to him if she didn't want to, and that in fact, because my father was "...never going to change," there was no need to go back.  (BTW, this NOT a situation of physical abuse or anything near)  She took this as his blessing to file for divorce, which she did. Anyway... point is, my mother filed for divorce primarily because she thought she had not only the blessing of this priest, but of the Church.  I attempted to later tell her that this was BAD advice from the priest, that what he advised her was not based upon any Catholic teaching I was aware of, etc.  In the end, they reconciled, so crisis averted.  However, if I ever set eyes on that priest..... well... let's hope it doesn't happen.

Point is... a lot of the faithful DO rely upon what is told them by priests, and even more so by the Pope, even in off-the-cuff remarks.  In that regard, I find many of things Bergoglio has been saying/doing, especially in instances where his actions are ambiguous (e.g., is "Who am I to judge" to be taken as a rebuking of Catholic teaching on same-sex attraction?) do indeed lead people down the wrong path, and some to possible eternal damnation.
(04-30-2019, 01:22 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]At this point, I must admit that I am very, very confused.  To be clear, I am not confused about the Roman Catholic Church being the Church founded by Jesus Christ and through which the Truth is to be found.  But I’m very confused how we can have a heretical pope like this.  Maybe there’s something I’m not understanding, but here’s what is going on in my mind (I hope I’m incorrect on this): Pope Francis is teaching things that are heretical, like God willing the diversity of religions and that Catholics in adulterous civil “marriages” can be readmitted to the sacraments, including Holy Communion, without ending their adulterous activities.  Here’s where I get really confused.  Let’s say a Catholic accepts the pope’s teachings here.  He believes that God wants Hindus to be Hindus, Muslims to be Muslims, Jews to be Jews, etc., and since he’s obtained a civil divorce in a valid sacramental marriage, but since remarried civilly, he’s told that he can now receive Holy Communion.  Wouldn’t this man’s soul be in grave danger of eternal damnation, despite having followed what the Holy Father has taught and implemented in practice?  I hope I’m really misunderstanding things here.

If a Catholic followed the erroneous teaching of a pope, bishop, or priest, I believe it would depend if the person knew it to be contrary to the faith of the universal Church (no one can be deemed ignorant of the principles of the moral law, though):

St. Thomas:

Quote:The simple have no faith implied in that of the learned, except in so far as the latter adhere to the Divine teaching. Hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 4:16): “Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.” Hence it is not human knowledge, but the Divine truth that is the rule of faith: and if any of the learned stray from this rule, he does not harm the faith of the simple ones, who think that the learned believe aright; unless the simple hold obstinately to their individual errors, against the faith of the universal Church, which cannot err, since Our Lord said (Luke 22:32): “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not.”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article6
Go to Edward Pentin! The letter includes a list of his heresies.
While I am impressed, how does this work with the Canon, "The First See is judged by no one"?
I'm very pleased to see men in Holy orders openly condemning heresy. I've sent some very strong worded e-mails out to clergy in recent years, but afterwards I always think how easy it is for me, not being in Holy orders.
(04-30-2019, 04:01 PM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]While I am impressed, how does this work with the Canon, "The First See is judged by no one"?

I'm not sure, but no Canon can order us to throw basic reason out the window when considering a prelate's statements just because he wears white.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19