Author Topic: Francis declares formal heresy? (Read 1699 times)

Centroamerica · « **on:** April 09, 2015, 03:00:48 PM »

Sorry, but it's hard to keep quiet about this topic. The SSPX's classical position, as spoken on in clear and proper terms by Fr. Hesse here ( ) is that is a pope who pronounces formal, clear heresy would cease to be pope. This position is also reflected in this article about sedevacantism still present on the neo-SSPX website here ( http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm )

"... not being able to prove that any of these authorities are formal heretics.

You are a 'material' heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own;
you are a 'formal' heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you’re denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway."

Francis just stated that the souls of the damned are annihilated according to a recent interview also reported by Fr. Gruner (here ) and the Remnant (here: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/1611-did-pope-francis-just-deny-the-existence-of-hell ).

Am I really left with only these two options...

1) Francis is not very competent and really believes that this new heresy he has spoken is reconcilable with Catholic dogma, his mind is sick and he knows no better.

2) Francis is not pope, maybe he once was, maybe Fr. Kramer is right and he never was, but as a formal heretic it is certain that IT IS NOT Francis.

________________________________________________________

I'm not the guy who's up and decided to become sedevacantist or say that Benedict is the pope or any of this, but option #1 seems incredibly naive to me...

BTNYC · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2015, 03:27:37 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Sorry, but it's hard to keep quiet about this topic. The SSPX's classical position, as spoken on in clear and proper terms by Fr. Hesse here ( ) is that is a pope who pronounces formal, clear heresy would cease to be pope. This position is also reflected in this article about sedevacantism still present on the neo-SSPX website here ( http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm )

"... not being able to prove that any of these authorities are formal heretics.

You are a 'material' heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own;
you are a 'formal' heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you’re denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway."

Francis just stated that the souls of the damned are annihilated according to a recent interview also reported by Fr. Gruner (here ) and the Remnant (here: http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/1611-did-pope-francis-just-deny-the-existence-of-hell ).

Am I really left with only these two options...

1) Francis is not very competent and really believes that this new heresy he has spoken is reconcilable with Catholic dogma, his mind is sick and he knows no better.

2) Francis is not pope, maybe he once was, maybe Fr. Kramer is right and he never was, but as a formal heretic it is certain that IT IS NOT Francis.

________________________________________________________

I'm not the guy who's up and decided to become sedevacantist or say that Benedict is the pope or any of this, but option #1 seems incredibly naive to me...

Well, as Fr. Hesse says in the very video you link to, a clear expression of formal heresy would have to include some statement affirming that the true doctrine is known but is still being wilfully, pertinaciously contradicted (i.e "I don't care what (the Church) says, I tell you..."). Such a formula removes all doubt about intention and makes the formal nature of the heresy manifest. That kind of formulation, however, is lacking in Francis' statement about "annihilation of the damned" (which statement is, of course, absolutely objectively heretical).

Now, I agree, it seems quite a stretch to say that any Catholic - let alone the pope - could make such a claim without knowing that it contradicts Catholic dogma, but even that is not sufficent to turn a material heresy into a formal one, at least not according to the parameters laid out by Fr. Hesse.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2015, 03:34:02 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Now, I agree, it seems quite a stretch to say that any Catholic - let alone the pope - could make such a claim without knowing that it contradicts Catholic dogma, but even that is not sufficent to turn a material heresy into a formal one, at least not according to the parameters laid out by Fr. Hesse.

In another video, Fr. Hesse explains that if the pope were to canonize Martin Luther than he would turn sedevacantist, that is to say, his explanation was not entirely in the strict sense, he also used common sense on the matter.

I can't find the video at the moment where Fr. Hesse says this but if anyone else can please post.

BTNYC · « **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2015, 03:49:37 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: BTNYC

Now, I agree, it seems quite a stretch to say that any Catholic - let alone the pope - could make such a claim without knowing that it contradicts Catholic dogma, but even that is not sufficent to turn a material heresy into a formal one, at least not according to the parameters laid out by Fr. Hesse.

In another video, Fr. Hesse explains that if the pope were to canonize Martin Luther than he would turn sedevacantist, that is to say, his explanation was not entirely in the strict sense, he also used common sense on the matter.

I can't find the video at the moment where Fr. Hesse says this but if anyone else can please post.

I've seen that video; yes Fr. Hesse did say that. But that would be an official act of the papacy (which these off the cuff remarks and interviews are not). The two would be analagous if Francis were to have formally declared "annihilation of the soul" as a Catholic dogma in any official capacity. All such actions would satisfy the "formal" aspect of the heresy, which this case, frankly, does not.

songbird · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2015, 03:54:59 PM »

Is saying the New Order Mess, heresy enough?! That is manifest!

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2015, 06:04:18 PM »

BTNYC is correct, and I agree with Fr. Hesse's formulation.

Songbird - Francis is a manifest material heretic. But, he is not(as far as I can tell) a manifest formal heretic.

reconquest · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2015, 09:56:54 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

I've seen that video; yes Fr. Hesse did say that. But that would be an official act of the papacy (which these off the cuff remarks and interviews are not). The two would be analagous if Francis were to have formally declared "annihilation of the soul" as a Catholic dogma in any official capacity. All such actions would satisfy the "formal" aspect of the heresy, which this case, frankly, does not.

There is a limit. It's not necessarily Vatican II, but there is a limit past which one must admit - at the very least! - an objective doubt about the legitimacy of these "popes". For Bp. de Castro Mayer it was the Assisi meetings, as he told Fr. Schoonbroodt on the eve of the Ecône consecrations. Have you forgotten that Bergoglio is the man who canonized Karol Wojtyla?

A "pope" whose official teaching is riddled with heresies, who prayed with false religions, who posed an official act declaring the heretical (not to say "scuмbag") founder of Opus Dei a saint in heaven, who excommunicated the only two bishops who had the courage to defend the true Faith and the true Mass during his reign? A "pope" who gave communion in the hand, who mocked God by releasing a false secret of Fatima, who allowed himself to be worshiped by crowds while presiding over the spiritual dump that is the Novus Ordo? This is the man Jorge Bergoglio has infallibly declared we should pray to and follow as a model of heroic virtue! And God did nothing to intervene! Wojtyla was worse than Martin Luther and God did nothing to intervene!

Bergoglio has showed his hand. He is not Catholic, not one iota. He doesn't have to solemnly define the opposite of every article of the credo for us to see that. He doesn't have to canonize Judas Iscariot for us to see that. He doesn't have to name a Jєωιѕн cardinal for us to see that. We must - at the very least! - admit an objective doubt about his legitimacy, as Bishop Tissier does, as Archbishop Lefebvre often did. Then justice will be done.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #7 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:19:45 AM »

Quote from: reconquest

We must - at the very least! - admit an objective doubt about his legitimacy, as Bishop Tissier does, as Archbishop Lefebvre often did. Then justice will be done.

:applause:

Cantarella · « **Reply #8 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:22:45 AM »

Quote from: Reconquest

This is the man Jorge Bergoglio has infallibly declared we should pray to and follow as a model of heroic virtue! And God did nothing to intervene! Wojtyla was worse than Martin Luther and God did nothing to intervene!

I wonder why God has done nothing to intervene. I pray it is just a matter of time.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:26:11 AM »

I would agree that this is clearly manifest heresy.

Only problem is that the alleged quote comes from a very dubious source and it's not 100% sure that Francis actually said it. Try tracing it to the original source and you'll see what I mean. Not only do we need to take this guy's word for it, but the quote comes in this rambling prose that makes it unclear what Francis said vs. what he would WANT Francis to say.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:35:10 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I would agree that this is clearly manifest heresy.

Only problem is that the alleged quote comes from a very dubious source and it's not 100% sure that Francis actually said it. Try tracing it to the original source and you'll see what I mean. Not only do we need to take this guy's word for it, but the quote comes in this rambling prose that makes it unclear what Francis said vs. what he would WANT Francis to say.

I agree 100 percent with what you state here. I had considered all of this also. The source is untrustworthy.

Someone else made the comment that these interviews were posted on the official Vatican site then taken down and then put back up. There is clearly a schism fomenting. None of us know really what is happening enough to say for sure anything about anything, I think.

TKGS · « **Reply #11 on:** April 10, 2015, 12:32:34 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

1) Francis is not very competent and really believes that this new heresy he has spoken is reconcilable with Catholic dogma, his mind is sick and he knows no better.

Do you really believe this is credible? Does a man get ordained in the Conciliar church, rise to the rank of cardinal archbishop, and be elected to the [Conciliar] papacy who is truly "incompetent" and really has no idea what the Catholic Church teaches on fundamental matters?

And, pray tell, why did Christ warn against following false leaders? Because, he said, both will fall into a pit. Even if he didn't know any better because he had been taught by false teachers, does that really excuse him or does he, too, fall into the pit?

People today seem to think that ignorance or "mental sickness" actually excuses people. Perhaps a true mental sickness, i.e., a sickness obviously similar to Alzheimer's or people who have to be locked, literally, in a padded room, might (I mean to say "might") be excused. But why do Catholics today seem to excuse any and all people who personally claim to be Catholic yet absolutely reject Catholic doctrine as just being "ignorant" or "mentally sick"?

Why don't we simply use the same standard as we use to judge Arius, Nestorius, Martin Luther, or any of the other heresiarchs in history? Why do we seem to think it's different today just because we happen to be living through it?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** April 10, 2015, 03:21:45 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Someone else made the comment that these interviews were posted on the official Vatican site then taken down and then put back up.

Yeah, we've had some members of the curia constantly doing damage control in the wake of Francis' idiotic spontaneous unscripted comments. At the very least they're getting annoyed with him. They should tie him up in the bathroom rather than letting him give those off-the-cuff interviews with journalists on his plane.

And this is normally how a potential SV situation would play out. Close advisors would admonish Francis that "Uhm, hey, that's heretical." If after that he recanted, then no formal heresy. But if he persisted, then the situation would escalate.