Author Topic: Sinagoglio hard to be proven a heretic? (Read 7903 times)

Sneakyticks · « **on:** July 10, 2014, 11:04:46 PM »

In the other thread Ladislaus said:

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont
This is a great example. This man is clearly non-Catholic. He does not even profess to be Catholic. This man could not be pope.

But it's not a great example. Jorge Bergoglio professes to be Catholic and claims to accept Catholic teaching. That's where the whole Dimond argument falls apart. They kept citing Nancy Peℓσѕι who goes around openly rejecting what she KNOWS to be Catholic teaching. That's obvious manifest heresy. Jorge Bergoglio seems to want to accept Church teaching and thinks that his opinions can be reconciled with Church teaching. Apart from the EENS question, Jorge Bergoglio has not openly contradicted any known Catholic dogma. I've asked for the SVs to prove heresy, and they have been unable to do so. And the closest he comes is on the EENS question, but his stance on EENS can be reduced to the very principles that are, ironically, also held by 95% of all Traditional Catholics. I can ABSOLUTELY SQUARE Jorge Bergoglio's attitude towards EENS with Suprema Haec.

Most SVs just throw around the charge of heresy like loose cannons because of their personal contempt for Jorge Bergoglio. But heresy is a serious charge that needs to be proven. Not every error is HERESY. There's a high bar for heresy. Not every wishy-washy touchy-feely sermon or misguided charity or lack of firmness in defending the truth in the interests of not offending someone or participating in a non-Catholic ritual so as to be a nice guy constitute HERESY. Sure they render him SUSPECT of heresy, but that's short of heresy itself. I have yet to see proof that Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic in the strict sense of the term. You operate based on a gut feel and personal dislike and contempt for the things he does, and so the accusation of "heresy" gets flung out there quite freely, but when push comes to shove, the SVs struggle at finding an example of heresy. Just to be honest, I put myself in the position of Bergoglio's "defense lawyer" on one thread and there was not one charge of "heresy" that I couldn't easily refute. I might start a thread dedicated to that subject.

First off, all agree that apostasy is greater than heresy.

Well, it just so happens that Ecuмenism was condemned as apostasy, as a total abandonment of the Faith by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.

Well, Vatican 2 consecrated Ecuмenism, consecrated and taught APOSTASY.

Obviously ever since the novus ordo antipopes have done nothing but engage in Ecuмenism -apostasy-, so they have all been APOSTATES.

So what do you say to this Ladislaus?

Synagoglio is not merely a heretic, but an apostate.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #1 on:** July 10, 2014, 11:23:40 PM »

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, #2:

Quote

A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

Notice, that the Pope here merely spoke about "conventions, meetings and addresses", in which "a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion".

He merely spoke about discussing, and this he condemned as apostasy!

What about the present day Vatican 2 ecuмenism? What about Assisi and the things Synagoglio himself has engaged in, which are miles away from what is described in Mortalium Animos?

What the Pope described here seems like NOTHING in comparison with what Vatican 2 taught and what has been happening ever since!

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #2 on:** July 10, 2014, 11:57:24 PM »

The evil bigger picture: isn't Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ heretical? Isn't membership self excommunicating? Wouldn't it be particularly heinous for a pope and/or clergy to be part of the craft of satan, which is dedicated to the destruction of the Church? I'm not asking to be argumentative. Please wake me from the nightmare. Correction more than welcome.

Cantarella · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2014, 12:43:35 AM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

The evil bigger picture: isn't Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ heretical? Isn't membership self excommunicating? Wouldn't it be particularly heinous for a pope and/or clergy to be part of the craft of satan, which is dedicated to the destruction of the Church? I'm not asking to be argumentative. Please wake me from the nightmare. Correction more than welcome.

Well, as nightmarish as it is, if we were to believe Pope Pius XII, an excommunicated freemason could still be elected Pope.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

“34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)

This is the Church Ecclesiastical Law that we know of and we can base our certainty in. Now, the sedevacantists argue that is the Divine Law which prevents a heretic from becoming a true pope so the heretic would automatically lose his pontificate. But given that in Canon law, the pope is not ultimately bound except by the Divine Law, who is really to say anything about this Divine Law?

If indeed is a matter of Divine Law, then God knows whether the seat is vacant or not. Do we have to, too?

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2014, 12:44:20 AM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

The evil bigger picture: isn't Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ heretical? Isn't membership self excommunicating? Wouldn't it be particularly heinous for a pope and/or clergy to be part of the craft of satan, which is dedicated to the destruction of the Church? I'm not asking to be argumentative. Please wake me from the nightmare. Correction more than welcome.

I will correct you. A Freemason or any other person is deprived of his office by due canonical process. When it comes to the Roman Pontiff, there is no such process.

Theologians have taught that Popes can attempt to destroy the Church, and in such a case it is lawful to resist them. It is not however, lawful to depose them, for that is fit for a superior.

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2014, 01:32:14 AM »

"It is not so easy to prove a heresy as many people think. The Catholic Church has always dealt with this accusation with extreme care. It is the gravest accusation you can make. When you consider that this accusation is directed to a Pope, you understand that it is impossible to deal with a more serious matter. However, I am seeing some persons who lack the needed study and maturity who are publicly labeling Popes, Councils, Cardinals, etc, as heretical. There is a certain brave sede-vacantist young man, still in his twenties, who claims that he found more than 100 heresies in the present Pope's statements and more 200 in Vatican Council II. He openhandedly condemns to hellfire all those who disagree with him. The least I can say is that he is somewhat hasty in his judgments. The practical consequence is that this kind of accusation, without the needed evidence, is more harmful than beneficial to the good cause. In face of this kind of imprudent action, the serious scholars who have spent long years in hard study and who are giving their blood to defend the Catholic Church run the risk of losing all credibility if they keep such company.

Second, if some heresy were to be proved, it is not so simple to decide that the Pope lost his pontificate. As I said before, there is no consensus about "when" a heretical Pope loses the papacy. Therefore, the position of many sede-vacantists, which presupposes that when a Pope falls into heresy he immediately loses his pontificate before the Church, is not exact. It is a simplistic solution to a very delicate and complex problem."
Atilia Sinke Guimaraes Resistance Versus Sede-Vacantism

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #6 on:** July 11, 2014, 01:35:33 AM »

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy.

www.dominicainsavrille.fr/les-dominicains-davrille-sont-ils-devenus-sedevacantistes translated by filiimariae.over-blog.com

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2014, 01:48:16 AM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

The evil bigger picture: isn't Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ heretical? Isn't membership self excommunicating? Wouldn't it be particularly heinous for a pope and/or clergy to be part of the craft of satan, which is dedicated to the destruction of the Church? I'm not asking to be argumentative. Please wake me from the nightmare. Correction more than welcome.

No need to bring Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ up; Ecuмenism is more than enough.

You have only created a distraction from the main point of the thread and as you can see already the anti-SV's have cashed in on the opportunity instead of address the main post.

Stick to Ecuмenism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2014, 06:35:21 AM »

I guess, then, Sneakyticks, you must reject the legitimacy of Pius XII also because Pius XII approved of several such interreligious dialogues, and your hero Cardinal Cushing was a veritable pioneer in Ecuмenical gatherings. Pius XII also approved Bugnini's "Mass of the Future" experimentations.

Mortalium Animos referred to Ecuмenism as wrong to the extent that it's premised on what he called the "false opinion" (note, this is a far cry from "heresy" proper) of religious indifferentism that LEADS to the loss of faith. He did not in and of itself call Ecuмenism "apostasy", as you claim.

There's nothing inherently wrong with speaking with members of other religions; it all depends on the underlying premises (i.e. is there religious indifferentism in play).

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2014, 07:01:44 AM »

I don't know. That last sentence highlighted in Mortalium Animos says they completely abandon the true religion. How is that not the textbook definition of apostasy?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #10 on:** July 11, 2014, 07:51:39 AM »

I'm pretty sure that a man could be a freemason and still be pope. The latae sententiae excommunication for masonry does is an ecclesiastical impediment, and ecclesiastical impediments do not bar one from participating in an election. Nor does this type of excommunication actually result in a loss of membership, whereas heresy does. I'm welcome to be corrected on any of this of course.

As to his heresies, all of these occurred before his election:

He co-wrote a book with a Jєωιѕн Rabbi. Here are some quotes:

“I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him… nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person"(Heaven on Earth 12).

"I did not forget how you [Rabbi Skorka] invited me twice to pray and to speak in the ѕуηαgσgυє, and I invited you to speak to my seminarians about values" (Ibid. 37).

"The Church officially recognizes that the People of Israel continue to be the Chosen People. Nowhere does it say: ‘You lost the game, now it is our turn.’ It is a recognition of the People of Israel" (Ibid. 188).

“I often say that the only glory we have, as Saint Paul says, is that of being sinners... That’s why, for me, sin is not a stain I need to clean (Ibid. 120-22)”.

Francis attended Jєωιѕн religious ceremonies in the ѕуηαgσgυє: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/637973-el-gesto-de-dos-amigos

Here's some nice video of him celebrating Hanukkah:

He instituted memorial services for Jєωs to be celebrated in his cathedral: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2013/03/bnai-brith-memorial-liturgy-in.html

More interreligious worship:

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/334917-oracion-por-la-paz-al-pie-del-obelisco
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/368653-sintesis
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcomipaz.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Frabino-abraham-skorka%2F
http://ceirberea.blogdiario.com/1154140980/ (where he kneels for a "blessing" from prot ministers)

Support of gαy "marriage":

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/world/americas/argentina-pope-civil-unions
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/pope-francis-civil-unions_n_2917222.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** July 11, 2014, 07:53:49 AM »

Denial of original sin, religious indifferentism, participating in and conducting false worship, denial of the necessity of faith.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #12 on:** July 11, 2014, 12:37:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I guess, then, Sneakyticks, you must reject the legitimacy of Pius XII also because Pius XII approved of several such interreligious dialogues,

Give me all the details on this, not just your word.

Quote from: Ladislaus

and your hero Cardinal Cushing was a veritable pioneer in Ecuмenical gatherings.

I believe Cushing was a heretic and an apostate. Why do you say he was my hero?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Pius XII also approved Bugnini's "Mass of the Future" experimentations.

You mean the Holy Week changes?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Mortalium Animos referred to Ecuмenism as wrong to the extent that it's premised on what he called the "false opinion" (note, this is a far cry from "heresy" proper) of religious indifferentism that LEADS to the loss of faith. He did not in and of itself call Ecuмenism "apostasy", as you claim.

Yes, ecuмenism is founded on religious indifferentism, on apostasy, you can't really separate them, and he said that "Not only are those who hold this opinion [religious indifferentism] in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called;"

He clearly says those who hold to religious indifferentism reject the true religion right off the bat.

Now THEN he turns to the "conventions, meetings and addresses" based on religious indifferentism, and of these he says that "it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion."

So, if you so much as support those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, you are an apostate.

Quote from: Ladislaus

There's nothing inherently wrong with speaking with members of other religions; it all depends on the underlying premises (i.e. is there religious indifferentism in play).

Obviously.

Cantarella · « **Reply #13 on:** July 11, 2014, 12:51:25 PM »

If you believe that a Jєω can be saved as a Jєω, a Muslim as a Muslim, and Hindu as an Hindu, a Protestant as a Protestant, etc, etc, etc (via last minute BOD) then, Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty can actually be quite reconcilable with the Church. If you believe that there is Sanctifying Grace outside the Church and that non-Catholics can also be saved without an explicit conversion to the True Faith, then the Prayer Meeting at Assisi makes perfect sense.

After all, everyone at the Prayer Meeting could be said to have good will and a "desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.". Everyone there could be indeed an invincible "Catholic", and "anonymous Christian", and thus part of the Church. If they are then justified, temples of the Holy Ghost, members of the Church and open to receive salvation, why not pray with them?

Again, Modernism has its foundation in the denial of the EENS dogma.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 11, 2014, 01:00:49 PM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Quote from: Ladislaus
There's nothing inherently wrong with speaking with members of other religions; it all depends on the underlying premises (i.e. is there religious indifferentism in play).

Obviously.

If you agree, then you have to prove religious indifferentism from the statements of Jorge Bergoglio. You ask for proof and yet you have not cited one word from Jorge Bergoglio to establish his belief in religious indifferentism. He's clearly implied this by his activities, but that's not proof of heresy. In bringing the charge of heresy, the burden of proof is on you.