Free Republic

I 100% agree we should pray for Pope Francis, who I think we can agree on is 99.999999% likely to be hung up in Purgatory.

As for Pope John XXII, my understanding is that His 4 times erroring on the Beatific vision was actually at Mass during His Homily, which in theory, I am not a Canon lawyer, could be a more serious error than Pope Francis errors regarding the God Wills a Diversity of Religions, which He did clarify and this other comment, which He has not.

ebb tide:

Yes they have, I have read the same things u have. They can say a statement was in error or potentially heretical and ask for clarification, which happened when Pope Francis talked about God wills Diversity of Religions, which He then correctly corrected that only in the context of God’s Permissive Will, not Positive.

We basically agree here (I use the term to be careful when I say potentially heretical with the idea that I might be misreading intent and give the person, any person, the chance to clarify).

So I went and looked at Canon 212, I am not sure that gives us laity the ability to charge the Pope or Bishop with heresy, but yes we can, as I have, found another parish if I here a priest say something questionable, which thankfully in my Diocese has not been a problem in years.

ebb-tide:

Like I said I have not posted much here and that was in 2023. I posted here in this Stream, back in June of 2024 and June 2023 in that thread.

But again the term Modernist, in your post even though you said then u were FSSP, I incorrectly assumed based on this recent thread u had moved towards SSPX, or even SSPV or CMRI. So I was wrong.

Maybe because of the Polarization due to Pope Francis Papacy by 2016 is what caused the division among Catholics Here, I freely admit that, which is why at that time in 2016 I stopped posting here much.

There was a segment of Catholics who started the modernist thing which is in fact the favorite line of Sedevacantist and SSPX. From 2007 to 2013, Conservative 1970 Missal Catholics here never were called Modernist. We were all Pope Benedict Devotees united against the theological attacks from the Protestants here.

So you are still in FSSP, which I 100% support. I am as I said a Conservative 1970 Missal who has sympathies with the FSSP, ICKSP and Institute of Good Shepherd Priests who celebrate the 1962 Missal. In fact, I think the Next Pope should create a Papal Ordinariate for those 3 Groups and give them a Presiding Bishop and supporting Bishops, let them buy these Old Churches for a bargain price and let them work on saving souls and ministering to Catholics who feel nourished by the 1962 Missal who also do not use it as a weapon against people like me who attend for lack of a better term, a Conservative/orthodox parish that uses the 1970 Missal.

So if I was out of line, I apologize. I hope we can bury the hatchet and just get along here if I decide to post more again here in Catholic Forums, or what is now a Catholic Caucuses.

ebb tide:

No A Bishop can’t do that, but A Bishop can hold anyone in His Diocese as one. Come on. I clearly said in that Post what has been said by Theologians about how a Pope can be charged with Heresy or error.

You are smart enough to know about Pope Honorius being charged with the error of failing to address the Monothelite Christological heresy [He never taught it Dogmatically] hence not a Formal Heretic and Pope John XXII 4 times teaching Error/heresy in private speeches on the Beatific Vision which resulted in the Cardinals holdiing a Consistory and going to charge Him with Heresy, He recanted then died and was never Declared a Formal Heretic.

Based on those 2 cases is what Bellarmine, De Sales and Suarze based their Arguments on How to Determine if a Pope is a Formal Heretic.

Who is the Religion Moderator?

What are the rules for a Catholic Caucus? Back in the day, certain Catholic forums allowed protestants to comment and vice versa.

So some context: I first got here in 2007 and was very active with the Catholics here back then as we were united against Protestants back then. I would say that was the case through Benedict XVI’s Papacy. After Pope Francis, I was here regularly to about 2015 or 2016 but around that time I saw more CMRI, SSPV and RCI Sedevacantist and the Catholics here started to fragment into groups and the unity debating the Protestants was not the same.

So after that time I stopped coming here much and went to Blogs and Catholic YT channels that at least I new what I was reading or watching. For example, in the last year, I had some posts here in this thread, then last time was in June of 2024 (ebb tide was in that one) and then back in June 2023 was the last time I posted on a Catholic Topic.

So I thought Trump_Triumphant was a protestant, in fact, I don’t think any of the Catholics who were here back in the 2007-2013 period are still around.

It seems that most of the Catholics here are Sedevacantist, which I thought maybe ebb tide was, but more likely I thought he was SSPX. He has disclosed He goes to and FSSP parish.

I am in the Catholic Church which now has Pope Francis as the Pope. I will not leave it ever and I will always defend the Office of the Papacy and Divinely Instituted by Christ even if it has a Pope that drives my crazy.

I have said and I will repeat 1) Pope Francis in my view was in error and what He said could be 2) a materially heretical statement.

What I can’t say, because I have No Divinely given Authority to do so, is Declare Pope Francis as a “Formal Heretic”. That authority belongs to the Competent Church Authorities which as I have already stated that based on Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis De Sales, both Doctors of the Church and Fr. Fransico Suarze, SJ Canon Lawyer and theologian, can only be done by a College of Cardinals finding a Pope a formal heretic or a Future Pope calling a Council and doing so.

So in my view, for me as a Catholic Layman to think I can declare someone a Formal Heretic de facto makes “me a Heretic”

I thought you are a protestant chiming in on the subject.

My apologies

And I told you I am not someone who has any authority to decide if anyone is a Heretic. If you think you are or u want to have that authority, go become a priest and become a Bishop.

ebb tide:

I thought he was a protestant

Ok, u most certainly have your right to question Pope Francis and many things that He has said. I have done so myself. But if you are going to dialogue with Me, I would appreciate u keep the topic about Pope Francis and not direct your issues with Him at Me. U have an issue with what I wrote, question it, challenge it, disagree with it, but direct that at what I wrote, not at Me.

I like u and other Catholics am just a layman sitting in my corner of the USA wondering when the next statement from Him is going to come down.

That may be true. But again to formally charge Him and Declare Him a Formal Heretic is not for Me or You to decide.

ebb tide, yes I can agree He made a statement that is Material Heresy. I can agree with that term, but determining officially in Canon Law that Pope Francis is in fact a Formal Heretic, which has a specific definition in Canon Law, that is only for the Competent Authorities.

ebb tide: Again I have used Pope is in error, made heretical statements, using whatever term u want manifest, material or occult, etc. What I have said regarding in theory relates to Formal Heretic which is the term usually applied to Catholics. Now, being charged with a crime does not make one a convict, that person would need to be convicted in a court of law.

In the same fashion, Pope Francis has made statements that are in error and in theory “heretical” because I can’t charge a Pope with Heresy nor depose him. That is why I use in error along with in theory heretical because only competent Authorities can in Catholic Canon Law charge and find a Pope guilty of heresy thus making the Pope a “Formal Heretic”.

1983 Canon Law which mirrors 1917 canon Law on this question
EMOVAL

REMOVAL

Can. 192 A person is removed from office either by a decree issued legitimately by competent authority, without prejudice to rights possibly acquired by contract, or by the law itself according to the norm of can. 194.

Can. 193 §1. A person cannot be removed from an office conferred for an indefinite period of time except for grave causes and according to the manner of proceeding defined by law.

§2. The same is valid for the removal of a person from an office conferred for a definite period of time before this time has elapsed, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 624, §3.

§3. A person upon whom an office is conferred at the prudent discretion of a competent authority according to the prescripts of the law can, upon the judgment of the same authority, be removed from that office for a just cause.

§4. To take effect, the decree of removal must be communicated in writing.

Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:

1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;

2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;

3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.

§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.

Can. 195 If a person is removed not by the law itself but by a decree of competent authority from an office which provides the person’s support, the same authority is to take care that the support is provided for a suitable period, unless other provision is made.

So who is the Competent Authority Here? Well from what I understand, it was what I posted yesterday 1) The Cardinals can get together and charge the Pope with “Formal Heresy” [Per Saint Robert Bellarmine, and Saint Francis De Sales and Fr. Francisco Suarze] which is why I cited the Pope John XXII example or 2) the Next Pope can call a Council and charge the previous Pope with Formal heresy and convict Him as such.

U and I can’t convict the Pope or any Bishop or any layman or laywoman as a Formal Heretic.

No, because I can’t charge and convict the Pope, that requires a canonical court and only as I already stated, the College of Cardinals can call a meeting as what happened with Pope John XXII to formally charge him with Heresy and then convict Him (there is the presumption of innocence) or an Ecumenical Council can convict Him under the next or future Pope.

We can sit here all we want and say the Pope is in error, is an occult heretic or material heretic. Saying He is a formal Heretic does not make it so because only an appropriate Church Authority as I said above can convict the Pope as a Formal Heretic. He may in fact not believe what He said in Singapore and was just making a political speech. While He as Pope is respectful towards people who lets say James Martin SJ supports, privately He reportedly says some things that are not so favorable about said group of people.

Who knows what Pope Francis thinks?

U and I can’t convict Him as a Formal Heretic. So I don’t use that term. So why don’t u just give me the term that will “Make U happy” other than “Formal Heretic” that u want me to use. I am tired of this BS

No, one can hold to heresy and not be formally charged. U need to chill with the attacks.

Pope John XXII 4 times in speeches and homilies between 1331 and 1334 before He died make heretical statements that were not within the received Tradition regarding the Beatific vision. He was warned the first time by a Cardinal, then a 2nd time, then by groups of Cardinals who had the consensus of all the theologians that he was saying something heretical or unorthodox. After the 4th time being told, he did not recant and the College of Cardinals gathered to charge Him with “Formal Heresy”. He recanted and shortly thereafter died.

Pope Benedict the XII, who was part of the Cardinals that told John XXII he was in error (held a heresy) then shortly thereafter issued Benedictus Deus

Benedictus Deus
On the Beatific Vision of God
Pope Benedict XII - 1334
Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336

Pope John XXII since he recanted his teaching of error was never charged with being a “Formal Heretic” but He 100% taught error 4 times, whatever u want to call it, occult heresy, material heresy, personal heresy, I don’t give a hoot now what what you call it.

So for the last time, Pope Francis is in error, he may in fact be a personal heretic, occult heretic or material heretic. He is not a “Formal Heretic” because u or me sitting on a key board does not make Him one.

Only an Ecclesial Body, either College of Cardinals get together and formally charge Him and convict Him as a Formal heretic or a future Pope call an Ecumenical Council and does the same can he be a “Formal Heretic”

So who determines if the Pope is a Formal Heretic? U can’t nor can I, we can say He is a Heretic but we can sentence the Pope as a Formal Heretic. So a Pope making an heretical statement is not presumed to be a Formal Heretic because that would have to be “proved” by the proper Church authorities.

I don’t need any thoughts from a sola ego, sola meo, sola scriptura member of the 1st strip mall local protestant ecclesial community.

My views on this matter are well documented in this thread and I have said over, and over again Pope Francis is in error and is wrong. What he said is heretical in theory if He actually thinks any religion is the same as the Catholic Faith which has always taught all Salvation is from Christ through His Body the Church. And yes, Lumen Gentium in Vatican II teaches the same thing.

I do not know if he actually thinks that because He is on record at every Catholic Setting clearly saying Christ is the only path to Salvation and Heaven.

so again, let me make it clear, based on History and what Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Francis De Sales and Fr. Francisco Suárez SJ, theologian and canon lawyer. To charge a Pope with heresy can only be done by either all the Cardinals who agree to come together and formally charge the Pope with Heresy and then prove it in a Canonical trial and then if the Pope does not recant, He is defined as a Formal Heretic or a future Pope calls a Council and it finds that Pope Francis did in fact hold Heretical views thus is defined as a Formal Heretic.

That is my view on the subject. As a protestant, assuming u are, it really doesn’t matter what your view is. Heck, u probably want the Catholic Church to fall apart anyway, so u should be eating ur popcorn and saying I hope it implodes.

ebb tide: To say He is without a doubt a material heretic is still not how I would say it. He may hold to a materially heretic position as He clearly said something that is heretical.

My reason to avoid overstating it is because to be recognized Formal Heretic, would require an act of the Church and Canonical trial done by the methods above.

That is how I see it. If you see it differently, that is fine.

I pray for the Pope and hope he clarifies and amends His Statement because I do think the Next Pope, once Francis has passed could ex post review all His Statements and have a Council that canonically investigates Pope Francis for whether He is a Formal Heretic.

ebb tide:

He is in error, it is an heretical statement on the surface, but it is non-Magisterium error. The reason I am using theory because for the Pope to be a Heretic, that requires a formal charge and Church canonical trial. That has not happened.

So I can say 100% He was wrong, He was in Error 100%. This statement undermines His on Magisterium as I noted, He always to Catholics says its only Jesus to get to Heaven but then this statement, which is error.

But again, I can’t charge the Pope with Heresy. I actually laid out what 3 great theologians, 2 of them Saints and Doctors of the Church said about how a Pope is determined to be a Formal Heretic.

You and I sitting here discussing this does not make Him a Formal Heretic. So I will say he is 100% wrong, 100% in error, and in theory might be a Formal Heretic. Maybe 10 years from now there will be a Council that formally has a canonical trial regarding Pope Francis and that question will be decided by the Church.

That is my view

What part of this is not material heresy:

All religions are a path to God.

I agree what he said is wrong, in error and theoretically heresy. What I don’t know if Pope Francis actually believes that are is He being the Church of Nice and not trying to ruffle feathers.

I just looked at His Homilies when He is at Mass talking to Catholics

From 2016 Holy Week, Jesus is the only Door to salvation

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/33748/pope-jesus-is-the-only-door-to-eternal-life

At an Angelus from 2022, again Pope Francis

“Then the Pope said that Jesus’ statement: “I am the door: whoever enters through Me will be saved” (Jn 10:9) means that to enter into God’s life, into salvation, one must pass through Him, not through another,” the Pope said.

https://www.gaudiumpress.ca/pope-francis-angelus-message-to-enter-by-the-narrow-gate-is-to-adapt-to-the-way-of-jesus/

Here is a May 2024 Homily on the Ascension, Jesus Ascending to the Father in Heaven is what leads us there, etc.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-05/pope-with-his-ascension-jesus-leads-our-way-to-heaven.html

So again, I try to look at all the facts, Pope Francis when talking to Catholics nothing anyone could disagree with. Several times talking to non-Catholics, in particular this speech in Singapore, statements that are in error and, again potentially heretical.

But what is His true Belief and is He in fact a Formal Heretic? That can only be determined by the Church with a formal Church Trial with all the evidence. And I don’t think that is going to happen as while I think many Cardinals are tired and exhausted by this Papacy, they are just going to wait it out for the next Pope.