Pope Francis Accused of Heresy By Members of the Catholic Church

[Xaios]

Been a while since I've been a Catholic, but this really sounds like a matter for the Grand Inquisitor to clear up. There will be an Inquisition, right?

Nobody expects the Francis Inquisition!

 

[StevenC]

That would be an Ecumenical matter

 

[Drew]

I would love to discuss these matters with people who are geuinely interested. But if I cant provide enough evidence, then people won't be interested. And while I think I CAN provide enough evidence...it certainly wont convince anybody...not that I am trying to. It seems people here will have already dismissed anything I can bring forth, before I even do.

As a general rule of thumb... If you want to make a claim that runs counter to broadly, near-universally-held beliefs, and you want that claim to be taken seriously, you'd better be making a strong case. If conventional wisdom is that the Caltholic Church and the Pope are exactly who they say they are, and you want to claim that they're actually a face for a shadowly cabel who really call all the shots... Then, the onus on you is to provide some pretty compelling evidence for that. Could the "conventional wisdom" be wrong? Sure. But, to reject it means you need to have a reasonable basis for that, and if you don't want to be laughed out of the room for making outlandish-sounding claims, then don't be offended when someone asks you for evidence for what you believe.

 

[Demiurge]

I wasn't giving the Jesuits enough credit as conspirators. Only today I learned that they were also accused of sinking the Titanic- of all things!

 

[MetalHex]

As a general rule of thumb... If you want to make a claim that runs counter to broadly, near-universally-held beliefs, and you want that claim to be taken seriously, you'd better be making a strong case. If conventional wisdom is that the Caltholic Church and the Pope are exactly who they say they are, and you want to claim that they're actually a face for a shadowly cabel who really call all the shots... Then, the onus on you is to provide some pretty compelling evidence for that. Could the "conventional wisdom" be wrong? Sure. But, to reject it means you need to have a reasonable basis for that, and if you don't want to be laughed out of the room for making outlandish-sounding claims, then don't be offended when someone asks you for evidence for what you believe.

Well first you have to define what qualifies for evidence on the internet.

 

[Drew]

Well first you have to define what qualifies for evidence on the internet.

Maybe you should start with what convinced you there was a shadow papacy.

I mean... Have you ever written a research paper? Do you know how to make a properly cited, sourced, persuasive argument? So far you seem pretty good at making excuses and denials and walking back statements, but maybe you could try a more proactive approach, you know?

 

[MetalHex]

Maybe you should start with what convinced you there was a shadow papacy.

I mean... Have you ever written a research paper? Do you know how to make a properly cited, sourced, persuasive argument? So far you seem pretty good at making excuses and denials and walking back statements, but that's about all I've seen.

....You didnt/couldn't answer my question....

 

[Mathemagician]

....You didnt/couldn't answer my question....

He literally did. Follow globally accepted academic standards for citing sources in a prepared report.



Related: Also I would read the FUCK about of a book about a shadow papacy. But it better be crazy convoluted and have mad assassin sub plots too.

 

[jaxadam]

Maybe you should start with what convinced you there was a shadow papacy.

I mean... Have you ever written a research paper? Do you know how to make a properly cited, sourced, persuasive argument? So far you seem pretty good at making excuses and denials and walking back statements, but maybe you could try a more proactive approach, you know?

I do!

-The earth is 6000 years old. (wikipedia et al, 420 BC)

-The earth is flat. (reddit et al, 2008)

-jaxadam is the best guitar player period (some asshole on the internet et al, 2019)

 

[Drew]

-jaxadam is the best guitar player period (some asshole on the internet et al, 2019)

I'm sure I said that while drunk once!

....You didnt/couldn't answer my question....

I did - "Maybe you should start with what convinced YOU in the first place," and then suggested you go about it like you would a research paper. I mean, you're the one who believes that what everyone else believes is wrong, and what we believe to be the Papacy is just a puppet show for a secret society pulling all the strings. Why do you believe that? What was it that convinced you that something you could easily verify with your own eyes and ears was false?

 

[tedtan]

I would love to discuss these matters with people who are geuinely interested.

We've had conspiracy theory threads in the Off Topic subforum before that generated several pages of discussion/speculation. If you genuinely want to discuss this topic, I'd suggest starting a thread over there. Here in P&CE, people will expect a higher standard of proof given the nature of this subforum.

 

[mpexus]

Any more doubts of the Church always going along with who is in Power? Now wonder why the Vatican refuses to allow viewing of anything after 1939 from their archives.

 

[Cynicanal]

Well, Catholic "tradition and morals" also states the infallible nature of the Pope. As such, he can't commit heresy at all. Ah, to be bitten in the proverbial arse by your own dogmas...

It's going to take me a while to get through the whole crapfest that this thread seems to be (found it after the other thread), but this is inaccurate. The Pope is only considered infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra, which is incredibly rare. There have been Popes who have declared things that are now considered heretical.

 

[Fred the Shred]

Yes, however as postulated formally in the Pastor Aeternum somewhere in the XIX Century, but even that is a confirmation of previous statements, some of which are far more radical, as seen in the Dictatus Papae (which can be argued as a proposition).

The holiness of renouncing to material possessions and the concept of Christ and Apostles having no possessions of their own, due to the Franciscan wing of the "Spirituals" pushing it as doctrine, for example, places two doctrinary papal documents in conflict: Nicholas III, while not stating that Christ had indeed no possessions, did remark the holiness of rejecting oneself and whatever wordly things as "most holy" when done in the name of God in a papal bull, yet as pressure climbed John XXII, due to other matters that did tie to this, officially made it "heretical" to merely claim that Jesus and the Apostles had no material possessions of their own. This in itself was enough to prompt outrage and a rather nasty uproar enough for John XXII to state, in a following bull, that he was not contradicting his predecessors, since Nicholas never stated that specifically Jesus and the Apostles had no possessions - it ended up being a semantics debate to prevent the uproar of disturbing the unwritten rule of infallibility.

All this to say that whenever we look beyond the official definition of "papal infallibility" there's a lot more to the tradition that is invoked as reasoning to accuse Francis of heresy. Historically, there's a lot more poiting to the Pastor Aeternum writing being there not to affirm papal sovereignty but rather to limit the scope of the infallibility that had been in place (and used very questionably as seen in the Crusades and Inquisition, for example) for centuries. Let us not kid ourselves here: the "tradition of the Church" has been used quite selectively over the centuries to push any given agenda, and the Pope is only at stake whenever he is threatening money, power, or both.

You're welcome to disagree with my position, but the dogma and the limitation of infallibility to doctrinal teachings are definitely NOT the tradition, but rather an elegant way to prevent the notion of infallibility from being used as a justification for everything convenient, and the Church has a long history of that happening, unfortunately.

 

[Fred the Shred]

Had to dig a little bit for this, but here's St. Bellarmine's assertion, as duly made a matter of faith in the 4th Council of Constantinople, published and signed by the fathers:
"The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor."

So either Pope Hormisdas is blatantly wrong, which can't happen seeing as the statement emanates from a proclamation of faith after a Council and thus Ex Cathedra, or the Pope can't be deposed as some tradionalist circles are pushing for. Even the whole Honorius (quite dubious, due to how his letters were interpreted) anathema debacle was taken into consideration when this was written (as well as the Pastor Aeternum), but truth is simple: unless the proponents of this deposition are denouncing the Church and its doctrine as possessing errors (and, ironically, committing heresy while doing so), they are asking for what is in essence a heresy in itself.

Even those with more moderate pretensions will have to know that a Pope being wrong or committing anything one can label as heresy stems from no ill will or sinful nature, but rather from not knowing better, as once again the often cited St. Bellarmine says:
“…the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers”.

 

[WhiteLightOfDeath]

If that’s authentic, quite unprecedented, especially considering the times...cuuurazzzyyy
Crazy interesting, thanks for sharing