Ben... you are right, there's no debate for your words, I salute you.

Why I had to made that question, because bergoglio's fanatics, that is their defense...

'Oh he hasn't spoke excatedra that's why is not heresy what he said'

There is NO comparison, Jesus is God and Bergoglio is not, I just wanted to show thise cheerleaders out there that he has ACTED, SPOKEN like a true HERETIC and many small catholics who don't know their faith needs to know the poison they are taking in in his homilies.

Look at that...

'Oh the pope acts better than he speaks'

Like when he went to that immigration center and told the muslims to follow their false teachings, which most likely can lead them to hell.

But anyways... yep Martin, no debate, he is a heretic.

I love his modesty---his cool stances, open shirt and hairy chest!

The dress of messenger does effect the messages.

If you were selling bar drinks at a rodeo bar----it would work. But to defend our Lord--way to cocky!

"Did Jesus ever talked excatedra?"---come-on---ex cathedra is for man not God. God is truth!!
You stand around debating the obvious and now it some shocking revealment that Francis is not speaking and acting Catholic---look at all the recently made "saint popes" you find the same or worst!

Like a dog chasing his tail---you look to Modernist to be Catholic and have authority that is binding in the Church

I believe that Pope Francis is a person that communicates most clearly by his actions, not his words. He clearly is trying to provide an example of how his bishops need to get out in public more -- deal with sinners in the world. From my perspective, that message is right on target. Christ led his apostles. Likewise, he is reaching out to leaders of other churches to start a dialogue that may open the door to their coming home. He has not said to any of these leaders that he is changing Church doctrine to make it more appealing to their own misguided notions.

Don't get me wrong...it would be nice if Francis were a better verbal communicator. I'm hopeful he'll get better. I do see signs of improvement. He refrained from issuing any statements at the recent synod....preferring to let the discussion evolve through the voices of others at this time.

I should like to thank @rhemes for his commet and precision re the intent of Verrechio, namely: "Is Mortalium Animos still the faith of the Holy Catholic Church?". My previous comment seeks to go beyond this question, while affirming it as very important. Reading Pius XI's Encyclical and just comparing it with the transcript of Pope Francis' communication to the Ark Community, I conclude that prima facie the words of Pope Francis have abrogated the rationally presented teachings of Pius XI on the nature of the "unity" of the Church. Pius XI placed emphasis upon truth as a prerequite for unity and Pope Francis place full emphasis upon unity, down plays differences (of truths) and asserts that anyone placing "focus on our differences" is "sinning against Christ". That is a radical (to the roots of faith) statement. I am forced to conclude that Gloria.tv, you yourself, myself and all who concern themselves with the "differences" qua their truth content are sinners. "The desire for unity", Pp Francis' own words, is the essential value that triumphs over the truths of the faith (called slyly "differences") and turns all who do not "desire unity", rather focus upon the truths that differentiate, into sinners, yes, into SINNERS!!!!!!!!!! And what is the facit here? Francis I has de facto contradicted the teachings of Pius XI and designated him to be effectively a sinner because of his focus on the differences of truth. That is heady stuff!!! (Space here does not allow me to touch upon the reason for the Pope's reasoning as it is refleted in the video of "Archbishop" Palermo -- who falsely undersands Luther's faith.)

Now a further question (and one that my obligation to truth demands):
If Pope Y contradicts Pope X on a significant teaching of faith (e.g., the nature of the unity of the Church), what should one think about the age-old claims of the Church regarding the Magisterium? It would seem that contradictions in understanding the faith are now part of the the teaching assignments of the Magisterium. The acceptance of mutually exclusive teaching could be conceived as a factual refuation of the "traditional" concept of the Magisterium or, simply put, Cathoicism blows itself up. In this context ideas such as material and/or formal heresy pop up in order to save the infallible nature of the Magisterium. Perhaps Catholics could borrow a notion from Islam, i.e., "abbrogation". If two parts of the Koran contradict eachother, the later teaching "abrogates" the early teaching. How is that for a way out?

Final note: In his comments the Pope, directing himself to the Ark Community, speaks of "our shared baptism" and treats such a "shared" fact as sufficent for, I guess, "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost", viz., communion between Christians of any type. Pope Francis inadvertently evinces the faulty nature of his thinking. For "traditional" Catholicism baptism is the manner whereby the baptized enters into the sacramental reality of the Church as the Body of Christ. Catholics baptize infants (who cannot chose one way or another) into the real sacramental nature of Christ's Body. Protestant Baptists, on the other hand, reject the sacramental nature of unity of the Church. Instead, a sufficiently adult person consciously choses to accept Christ as his savior and then consciously allows him/herself to be baptized as a symbolic manifestation of said acceptance. For this reason, Baptists (who respect the truth of their faith) rightly reject Catholic baptism as a falsification of Christ's intentions. So, I have just focused up the differences of faith regarding baptism. In the end, since reason unto truth has been papallly sidelined, Pope Francis states nothing more than verbalisms, verbalisms and verbalisms -- And I have just sinned against Christ, in Francians terms, because I have just pointed out a difference. I do not take such condemnations by the current Pope in a friendly manner. The man has condemned me to hell as a sinner because I do not agree with his verbalisms and wish to focus upon differences, all in the name of TRUTH!

My reason for posting this; was in the hope that Mr. Verrecchio's challenge may gain a larger audience.
I think his question is At the very Least a good starting point for Truth to be served.
Is Mortalium Animos still the faith of the Holy Catholic Church?

Father Ray Blake touches upon something important; Which I believe IS Mr. Verrecchio`s concern and argument.{at least in part}
I think , Prof. Leonard Wessell alludes to this in his last paragraph.

from Father Ray Blake`s blog. marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2014/11/cans-of-worms.html
The talk of changing pastoral practice but keeping doctrine is nonsensical, the Word is Alive precisely because of the pastoral practice that gives it traction. There is rather intelligent illustration here of how we have changed the Doctrine of Suppression of the Old Covenant by the New Covenant, of the difference between doctrine, sort of, remaining the same whilst practice and words change until no-one actually believes what the doctrine actually defined.

Can we please just serve Truth.

Pray for the Pope.
Pray, and do penance for the next synod, and the Church.

My dear professor...

I think it was in one if Rhemes contributions that I brought this up...

Did Jesus ever talked excatedra?

Pope Francis knows what he is doing, he constantly is in the media, talking so many strange and worldly things, but all who defend the most humble man ever created by God, the 'he hasn't done material/formal heresy always comes up.

Some people come with the, we need to pray, once they read theprophecy of St Francis of Assisi... the little friar says that priests either will stay silent or consent to error, isn't this what we are living? Schisms and diverse opinions will be among the people and clergy, isn't this what we are living? Strangely but accurate, the little friar says the IMMACULATE purity if our order and others shall be eclipsed, aren't we seeing that with the capuchins of Boston and their LGBT liberalism and the hammering of the most pure Franciscan order now to date, the Franciscans of the IMMACULATE?

Note that Franciscans now a day don't live the same way as the first Franciscans did, their order also divided into many franciscans with different charismas, but the IMMACULATE ones are those who don't own things, who did latin mass only, who had seminaries filled with vocations, and they begged on the streets like St Francis did.

Yep, Verrechio is right, even though most 'traditionals' will say we need not to despair and push such agenda to let people flee to certain seer sect or the SSPX... if we don't say waht we say we are GUILTY of the same omission that everybody else is falling to, and another thing is no matter what happens... Jesus flock are his flock and no matter where they are (either in the SSPX or with Maria) He will not let that sheep fall away from the 99, those who don't know what both the SSPX is or Maria, should try them and then make an opinion.

To me the SSPX is catholic despite whatever they say, and Maria volunteers actually pray for Francis soul, go to confession, pray the rosary, chaplet, the litanies, prayers, and most of the nin catholics there eventually take the RICA.

Pope Francis has made all the damage to the church by teaching heresy through the media but most theologians won't touch him dobecause is excatedra, but most people are opening their eyes and eventually a remnant will go into the desert when in 2015 he signs on material heresy as the Synod will have the majority votes for him to say 'I'll do what my bishops ask of me'

With regret and sorrow I am, paradoxically, grateful for this contribution; it exudes the love of truth (judgments that correspond to the way things really are), though it leaves me wanting to go one step further and discuss the fine discussions of Karl Popper about being able to set criteria to test the refutation of a claimed truth. More on this below.

I am no real fan of theology (except natural/philosphical theology, e.g., God's infinity, being, existence, etc.); theologians of revelation are continually pullying each others beards (= metaphor for disagreeing >> at times concerning mutally exclusive "truths" re revelation). The material presented by Verrecchio shows us theologians, representatives of revealed theologies that assert mutually exclusive and, hence, differing "truths" (e.g., the real presence in the Host or, even, the nature of sacraments, assuming sacraments are accepted), who have ceased to pull each other's beards of difference (re TRUTH) and concluded that the mere possession of beards means UNITY, so long as the common verbal unity of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" and, perhaps, also "Jesus" coats the wagging tongues of the differently bearded theologians. The message is clear: UNITY (with minimal conceptual agreement) IS the categorical imperative of the Spirit (of modern times), relative to which differences (of TRUTHS) pale into insignificance; an imperative which inexorably constitutes the categorical MISSION of the "Church" (ambiguously? meaning Catholic and non-Catholic institutions). If my interpretation is correct, then the "Catholic" Pope Francis & Co are construcing a brand NEW lex credendi which with logical necessity demands reflection in the Novus Ordo of the current lex orandi, a lex notably contra the form and intent of traditional Latin Mass and the concept of TRUTH generating it.

The current Pope is straining my obligation to TRUTH (which as St. Anselm claims: Veritas est Deus). This obligation demands that I judge things to be as they are, not as I want them to be, even if my "wanting" is motivated by a desire for UNITY, one that excludes significant truths from the differences between theologians, within and without the Catholic Church. Such unity is a unity of emotions of "feel good", of "do-goodies", love and mercy (without truth), help the poor, unload on capitalism, etc. etc. I then read the Mortalium animos and find Pope against Pope. What???? What should I conclude?

Let me go back to Popper. Popper argues that a truth-claim that allows for no possiblity of refutation is phoney, is a pseudo-truth-claim. Now Popper was interested in science. His idea, however, is applicable elsewhere. The Catholic Church has claimed that the Magisterium cannot formally contradict itself on matters of faith and morals. Am I correct here? If Verrecchio is correct with his presentation and I with my interpretation, then my problemaitc differs from Verrecchio'a. Verrecchio asks about respect for the truths asserted by a previous Pope. Good question! But, if Pope X contradicts Pope Y concerning the nature of the unity (in truth) of Christ's Church, then it would appear that we have a case where the Catholic cliam to non-conradiction has been refuted. Verrecchio's way out has been explicitly to designate Pope Francis as a material heretic. Only a formally proposed contradiction could refute the Magisterium claim. My questions for Verrecchio or any reader is: Is Verrecchio's distinction betweem formal and matrial heresy sustainable? Can Pope Francis go endlessly around materially contradicting previous papal formal teachings without ever entering the realm of formality? If the answer is "no", then a situation evincing Popper's criterion of refutation has perhaps come about.

I have no answer as of yet! But, even if Pp Francis persists in Verrecchio's terms to be repetitiously heretical in materiality (i.e., never crosses the line of formality) the distinction will eventually make no significant distinction. The Pope's repeated falsities and repeated false behavioral patterns based on such falsities will at best obfuscate the real everlasting TRUTH(s) previously of the Magisterium. Formal contradiction will refute unchanging TRUTH(s) as seen from the point of view of a centuries-long Catholicism. This Pope is a scandal in many way, particularly for those who lovingly and imperatively seek THE truth(s).