Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: mobius on September 13, 2013, 07:54:44 PM
-
Is Pope Francis a Formal Heretic or not? That is, Outside the One True Church of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church?
-
I would say, "Yes," although, I agree that only Jesus Christ Himself or the Church, at a later date after his ceding the Throne of Peter (either through death or abdication), could pronounce him as being a formal heretic. Until then, traditional Catholics have not only the right but the duty and obligation to resist him and his many errors and those of his predecessors.
-
It would certainly seem to be the case.
-
I wish that we can vote on it.
I would say yes, and blame the liberalism of his family influence, and
vatican 2. And, the masonic ideals that infests all sectors of the church,
and society.
A good example, he thinks that it is more important that a man has
a job, and food to eat, than save his soul.
-
To be a heretic don't you have to be Catholic?
-
To be a heretic don't you have to be Catholic?
Posts like this may be good thumbs-up bait around here, but let's bear in mind that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was Baptized and Confirmed well before V2, making him a member of the Catholic Church, even by the most rigid sedevacantist reasoning (whatever might be said of his Ordination to the Priesthood and Consecration to the Episcopacy).
Let's not abandon common sense in the race to be Raddest Trad in town.
-
To abandon common sense don't you....oh never mind.
-
. . . the liberalism of his family influence . . .
What do you know about this? I am not at all surprised. But I haven't followed him close enough to be familiar with liberalism in his family.
-
To be a heretic don't you have to be Catholic?
You have to have had a valid Christian baptism, nothing more; after that, all that it takes to fall into heresy is the denial of a single Catholic doctrine. Protestants are heretics, as are the Eastern Orthodox, indeed, nearly all so-called Catholics.
-
I apologize for my earlier comment.
Yes, I realize he is Catholic. I sent the past few days at my neurologist's office and I guess I was still a bit off from all of the anesthetic I received. In addition, I was a bit frustrated by numerous questions from Protestant friends about the Pope's recent actions and statements.
-
Yes, I think he is a heretic. He is Vatican II through and through and Vatican II is heresy.
-
There can be no doubt he is a great heretic and an enemy of the Church, he is also a dedicated liberal, modernist and a humanist.
-
I was a bit frustrated by numerous questions from Protestant friends about the Pope's recent actions and statements.
I can sympathize with that 100%...
-
You know, I have been trying so hard not to say it, but I can't seem to defend it any longer.
Yes, he appears to be a heretic. Now what?
-
Keep calm and carry on.
-
You know, I have been trying so hard not to say it, but I can't seem to defend it any longer.
Yes, he appears to be a heretic. Now what?
All the conciliar popes have been heretics, liberals and avowed modernists - it's been going on for the last 50 years already, the only crime has always been anyone saying something about it.
-
I was a bit frustrated by numerous questions from Protestant friends about the Pope's recent actions and statements.
I can sympathize with that 100%...
Heh, now I've got Bible-only protestants trying to convert me to their heresy. Um, no thank you.
-
I would say, "Yes," although, I agree that only Jesus Christ Himself or the Church, at a later date after his ceding the Throne of Peter (either through death or abdication), could pronounce him as being a formal heretic. Until then, traditional Catholics have not only the right but the duty and obligation to resist him and his many errors and those of his predecessors.
Jehanne do you really think that a heretic is going to willfully abdicate? Did that ever happen in the history of all the anti-Popes we have ever had. In fact it was precisely this point that made St. Vincent Ferrer declare in front of Benedict XIII, all of his Cardinals, several Kings, Bishop's a schismatic etc... After St. Vincent made that SV'ist declaration (once again the realization of something that was true already, so that the maxim that the Apostolic See is judged by no one is kept fully intact) all but a few Cardinals remained loyal to Benedict XIII so great was his moral authority that Historians rightly call Martin V, "Brother Vincent's Pope." Heretics can be judged by the Church, a true Pope can only be judged by God.
The Church cannot declare a true Roman Pontiff a formal heretic either when he is alive or dead. It would be only because the man was already a heretic that he could be judged by the Church, so now we are back to square one. Instead of waiting for hundreds of years for something that honestly I highly doubt will ever happen, just realize the spiritual reality of what you are saying. If you say that in the future such a declaration should happen, then that would imply necessarily that our position was the true one all along. That is that they never were true popes...
I agree you have a duty not to accept heresy, maybe not resist a true Pope. Nevertheless you are trying to preserve the Catholic faith whole and undefiled. So I am happy that you are resisting a false claimant, although you might think that he is a true Pope he is not. So in the end by resisting all their errors you will have kept in tact the fullness and integrity of the Catholic faith.
-
The answer to the question of this thread is as follows:
Yes
Unless there is no such as a formal heretic.
-
I would say, "Yes," although, I agree that only Jesus Christ Himself or the Church, at a later date after his ceding the Throne of Peter (either through death or abdication), could pronounce him as being a formal heretic. Until then, traditional Catholics have not only the right but the duty and obligation to resist him and his many errors and those of his predecessors.
Jehanne do you really think that a heretic is going to willfully abdicate? Did that ever happen in the history of all the anti-Popes we have ever had. In fact it was precisely this point that made St. Vincent Ferrer declare in front of Benedict XIII, all of his Cardinals, several Kings, Bishop's a schismatic etc... After St. Vincent made that SV'ist declaration (once again the realization of something that was true already, so that the maxim that the Apostolic See is judged by no one is kept fully intact) all but a few Cardinals remained loyal to Benedict XIII so great was his moral authority that Historians rightly call Martin V, "Brother Vincent's Pope." Heretics can be judged by the Church, a true Pope can only be judged by God.
The Church cannot declare a true Roman Pontiff a formal heretic either when he is alive or dead. It would be only because the man was already a heretic that he could be judged by the Church, so now we are back to square one. Instead of waiting for hundreds of years for something that honestly I highly doubt will ever happen, just realize the spiritual reality of what you are saying. If you say that in the future such a declaration should happen, then that would imply necessarily that our position was the true one all along. That is that they never were true popes...
I agree you have a duty not to accept heresy, maybe not resist a true Pope. Nevertheless you are trying to preserve the Catholic faith whole and undefiled. So I am happy that you are resisting a false claimant, although you might think that he is a true Pope he is not. So in the end by resisting all their errors you will have kept in tact the fullness and integrity of the Catholic faith.
Nice post.
-
2vermont: What do you do? You pray for your enemies.