This is a very important read amidst the hysterial accusations being made all over the place! Take a breath people!
No one in a position of ecclesial responsibility—not the Four Cardinals posing dubia, not Grisez & Finnis cautioning about misuses, and not the 45 Catholics appealing to the College, among others—has, despite the bizarre accusations made about some of them, accused Pope Francis of being a heretic or of teaching heresy. While many are concerned for the clarity of various Church teachings in the wake of some of Francis’ writings and comments, and while some of these concerns do involve matters of faith and morals, no responsible voice in the Church has, I repeat, accused Pope Francis of holding or teaching heresy.
That’s good, because the stakes in regard to papal heresy are quite high. Those flirting with such suspicions or engaging in such ruminations should be very clear about what is at issue.
First. Heresy is, and only is, “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt…
View original post 1,287 more words
5 thoughts on “A canonical primer on popes and heresy”
As you point out, Austen Ivereigh’s piece was really bizarre. None of his supposed arguments have any relationship to the truth at all. They are all deeply silly. Never before in the history of Papal reporting has an article been so weird and laughable at every point it makes.
It is so weird, that I would not be surprised if we learned he was under the influence of some drug at the time he wrote it. This was supposed to be a help to Pope Francis? Far from it, it only made the Pope look stupid.
Today Ivereigh is out with another bizarre article in Crux. Here, he talks about Pope Francis’s Enneagram status “Pope Francis is an Eight”. It sounds like his astrological sign is going to be next. Eights are wise, noble, passionate, and have good taste. Ivereigh is starting to sound as if he is starting to believe that Pope Francis is a divine being.
Truly nutty stuff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I’m not sure about the drugs but I’m really surprised John Allen is putting up with this.
I get this man’s blog in my email. He is good, very good. I check with him on fuzzy stuff. Now, for the bad side. When going up against SSPXer’s and their ilk, I use his stuff. They DO call Pope Francis a heretic as well as a few other names. All that is done to lend credence to their claims of the invented crisis in the church that demands the responses made by Lefebvre and his followers. Truth be told, the real truth falls flat on the floor flopping around like a dying fish when you present it to them. Constantly. I’ve quoted Popes and papal documents as well as stuff from Dr. Peters site and works as well, yet they refuse to admit that any of it credible and prefer the fabrications of reality prepared for them by their leaders. It really gets frustrating. I walk away wondering how they consider themselves Catholic when they’ve left behind the crown of all virtues, obedience. Show them that, and you are attacked and told you’re not charitable, etc. Pope Francis’ antics and blunders give them plenty to work with to convince others that he is a false pope, or that the SSPX is and has been correct to leave the church behind, and DO NOT use the word schism in speech with them, because according to most, they aren’t schismatic and even if you show them the Decrees of Excommunications that call the acts of the SSPX schismatic, they refuse to accept and agree that that is indeed true! Craziness! When I tire of going a few rounds with them, I simply return to reading Dr. Peters or Cardinal Burke and I get greatly consoled just by their sheer sanity and simplicity. Faithfulness really looks swell on a man. They shine like lights in a very dark place. I am very grateful for the men they’ve allowed themselves to become in the hands of God. May God bless us with a few more like them. God bless. Ginnyfree.
This is a fairly laughable attempt to vilify the SSPX. Whether this one or the next one, the Pope will recognize what the SSPX already possesses, namely the right to be called Catholic by any and all, most especially the modernists who gutted the faith almost (save for the grace of God) to its shipwreck.
You say “claims of invented crisis”. There is no crisis?
Whether anyone comes to knowledge of the fullness of the Catholic tradition through the FSSP, the ICRS, Summorum Pontificum, or any other traditional society, we have to thank for that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. If you wish to do something worthwhile in the effort to renew the Faith, why don’t you confront your modernist bishops and priests rather than decent people who are trying to do the best for themselves and their children by raising them Catholic.
By the way, I thought the crown of all virtues, was love.
Andrew, I recognize in the tone of your response a rather old and tiring attempt to lend honor to a rather dishonored group of men who defied the Church in many ways and who continue in their rebellion. You will never be able to make bread of stones and no matter how you wrap it, a rotten fish still smells like a rotten fish. There is no excuse for schism and heresy. None. Those who followed Martin Luther out the door felt just as justified. They all thought they were doing the right thing as well, or they wouldn’t have done it. It is exactly the same with the SSPX and those who cheer them on from the sidelines. I have no way of knowing just how involved you are in their movement and likely you won’t disclose publically how closely you have tied yourself to them for fear of ecclesial penalty formally imposed. I get that. However, the fact that you’d say one word in their defense says it all to me. Good luck. Come back to the fold before it is too late and please stop encouraging others to support these schismatic lunatics. God bless. Ginnyfree.