[sitetest]

Dear piusv,

I'm a pretty cautious person. I try to understand the implications of what I think and believe. If Bergoglio is a formal heretic, then the chair is empty. Is that a possibility? Sadly, yes, it is. But it's an extraordinary thing to think. So, I think about the topic in the way that leads to the most conservative judgment. Your theologian notwithstanding, no one can be guilty of formal heresy who is incapable of understanding their fault. Think of someone who is mentally disables, with an IQ of, say, 65. If this person has an inaccurate understanding of the Real Presence. are we to say that he is a formal heretic and excluded from the Church?

You say that clerics cannot be invincibly ignorant. Rather, you should say, clerics SHOULD not be invincibly ignorant. There is a reason why we used to have tighter intellectual standards for ordination. Unfortunately, it seems those standards have fallen.

I have heard Bergoglio give speeches, talks, that were very good. And I wondered, how can he be so on the mark today and so off the mark the next? Then I found out, many of his speeches are prepared by his theologians without much input from him. He reads them, he agrees with them, he vaguely seems to be aware of Catholic doctrine. But when he ventures out on his own, depending on his own intellectual resources, it appears that he's lost at sea. So, he comes up with nonsense. Not because he's a formal heretic, but because he's not too bright. This is why he always denounces “the doctors of the law,” because down deep, he realizes his intellectual inadequacy, and he resents it. And so in himself, he says something like, “They're not as smart as they think they are! THEY may have the LAW, but I have the SPIRIT!”

And he goes with the side whomever flatters him most.

If you wish to say that he is vain, egotistical, and pompous, I won't argue with you for a moment. But to that, I think one needs to add “not the greatest theological mind of the 21st century.”

sitetest

[piusv]

Many of our saints were not great theological minds, so I believe the excuse that Francis is not a great theological mind is a red herring (not to mention that I think you are totally off base that he's dumb....he knows exactly what he's doing and saying). Any contradictions on his part have more to do with his Modernism (heresy) than who writes his speeches. Modernists are notorious for getting things right some of the time. A little heresy along with orthodoxy goes a long way.

Popes are expected to know and teach the CATHOLIC FAITH. Are we to believe that all clerics post Vatican II, given the so-called poor seminary teaching, get a pass? Are you trying to tell me that these seminaries taught "ecumenism of blood"? pantheism?

Besides all of this, Van Noort teaches that the main issue is not material or formal, but public vs private or what is also called manifest vs occult heresy. He states, If public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. Except for a man walking around in white, where is the visibility and unity under Francis? Of all people, a pope should get a pass for invincible ignorance when the visibility and unity of the Church are on the line? Really?

I get that you're being cautious but I've been watching this guy for two years now. As far as I'm concerned he is a fraud.