We've done this exercise before, but it was buried in a BoD thread (where else?).

I'd like to know what heresies you think Jorge Bergoglio holds.  I ask this in particular of sedevacantists.  It's easy to just say he's a heretic out of a visceral reaction again him, but it's another thing to have hard proof of heresy.

We've done this exercise before, but it was buried in a BoD thread (where else?).

I'd like to know what heresies you think Jorge Bergoglio holds.  I ask this in particular of sedevacantists.  It's easy to just say he's a heretic out of a visceral reaction again him, but it's another thing to have hard proof of heresy.

Two heresies that come to mind immediately are his belief that the Jєωs are God's Chosen People still and their Old Covenant is still valid, at least for them, and the other clear heresy is where he said that faith without works is not true faith:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-Jєωs-chosen-people.htm

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/heresy-francis-true-faith.htm

There is a lot more info on this page:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/pope-francis.htm

Of course he also said there is no Catholic God and has insinuated several times that the Bl. Virgin Mary was not free from sin.

Quote from: TKGS

For starters:  "247. We hold theJєωιѕн people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked..." (EVANGELII GAUDIUM)

Would this erroneous statement be considered as part of an already condemned heresy? If so, which?

Or would this statement have to be condemned (by the legitimate authority, of course), as a brand new heresy?

This is a curious question.  

Do you seriously believe that every heresy must be formally "condemned by legitimate authority" before it is heresy?  The layman, Eusebius, certainly did not wait to see if "legitimate authority" condemned Nestorius when he taught that Mary is not the Mother of God but only the Mother of Christ.  He knew the Catholic Faith and could see that this teaching, while it had never been formally condemned and given a special name, was indeed heresy.  The Church praises Eusebius and we should be as bold as he in rejecting any man who dare teach doctrines other than those we have received.

This statement by Bergoglio is contrary to the Catholic Faith on its face.  Any Catholic with a knowledge of any pre-Vatican II catechism can see that.  However, a quick review of just one source, we can find the following:

[By] the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. ... [The] gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.  "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the ѕуηαgσgυє to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom."  (Emphasis added.)

Has Bergoglio's statement been condemned?  I don't know.  Frankly, I don't think anyone prior to 1960 would have imagined a need to condemn as a heresy a teaching so clearly contrary to the Catholic Faith as taught from the beginning.   Such a condemnation would seem about as superfluous as condemning the teaching that God does not exist.  Can we agree that atheism is a heresy?  Oh wait!  Didn't Bergoglio say that atheists can be saved too?  But maybe atheism hasn't formally been condemned by legitimate authority...of course!

"On the contrary, the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in our heart: Do good and do not do evil. The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. [this is true] Everyone! 'Father, what about the atheists?' Even the atheists. [this is true] Everyone! And this Blood makes us first class children of God! [this is not true.  One may say that all men, even atheists, are children of God in a very generic sense in that all are created by God, but Bergoglio draws the connection between the work of redemption and being created Children of God-- he is CLEARLY, by his own words, NOT speaking about this in a generic sense, but as a result of the act of the redemption.  We are not only not made children of God by the Redemption, we are only made adopted sons through baptism-- and only maintain as heirs to Heaven so long as we remain justified, which we cannot be without the virtue of faith, which an atheist obviously lacks]. We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace [when left nebulous and ambiguous, it is not a path toward peace but a license to do whatever one likes]. If we, with everyone doing his own part; if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of meeting: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good! We shall meet there. [Not while they're an atheist.  At the very, very minumum it is required for salvation that man believe in God and recognize Him as the rewarder of the just.  An athesit does not meet this very bare minimum requirement and can therefore not be saved]"

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pope-says-no-to-intolerance,-everyone-can-and-must-do-good,-even-atheists-27989.html

There have been several apologies for this teaching which depend on the meaning of redemption, i.e., most media outlets have viewed this as Francis saying atheists are saved (misunderstanding "redeemed" to mean "saved") and the Novus Ordo press has hung its hat on the fact that to be redeemed does not mean to be saved-- this is true, but Francis has at least an erroneous belief in redemption in that it makes us Children of God "of the first class" (which is novel language-- its meaning is unclear except that it obviously means more than mere creations of God) and I would say that it is quite likely heretical, considering that the nature and effects of the redemption are quite well defined and do not include being made children of God in any sense-- much less in a sense where one who denies the most very basic tenet of the natural law can be saved.  

I had forgotten about this quote until recently.  It can be difficult to keep up.

...Francis has at least an erroneous belief in redemption in that it makes us Children of God "of the first class" (which is novel language-- its meaning is unclear except that it obviously means more than mere creations of God) and I would say that it is quite likely heretical, considering that the nature and effects of the redemption are quite well defined and do not include being made children of God in any sense-- much less in a sense where one who denies the most very basic tenet of the natural law can be saved.  

I had forgotten about this quote until recently.  It can be difficult to keep up.

It's heresy. No one is a "child of God" without baptism and belief in Christ.

"But as many as received Him, He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in His name."
--St. John 1:12

He just recently told the members of the mafia that they would go to Hell if they did not repent.

He needs also preached to  Atheists, Jєωιѕн, and Muslins, modernists
and indifferent Catholics, Protestants the same sermon.
If he does, we may think he still may be Catholic.

I can definitely recognize the heresy in his statements. However, as a mere laywoman, would not my private judgment would stay in the realm of speculation, until the appointed authority makes an official condemnation of the alleged heresy? Just as in the past (ex: Nestorianism, Arianism, Americanism, Pelagianism, Modernism, etc). These heresies may have been detected from the start it is the responsibility of the Church Herself alone to make the official condemnation.  

Quote from: Cantarella

I can definitely recognize the heresy in his statements. However, as a mere laywoman, would not my private judgment would stay in the realm of speculation, until the appointed authority makes an official condemnation?

Will we begin to see this attitude reflected from you on the BOD threads?

Stay in topic. No BOD here.