123jussi
Francis has thus confirmed his support for the new German reformation!
Tesa
It's like they actually think anyone still believes these dog and pony shows of theirs are real. I honestly don't see the point in all this skullduggery.
Tesa
If they spoke about Marx's wish anyway ahead of time, the pope could have told him right away. Why this publicity? Kabuki theatre. None of these people do anything on their own.
P N F
Note Bergoglio's reference to Ezechiel 16. The "shameless prostitute" is the "harlot of Babylon" described in Apocalypse 17. This "harlot" or "prostitute" is the apostate "Counterfeit Church" born of the errors of Vatican II, growing like a noxious weed for almost six decades, and now bearing fruit as the German Synodal Way.

Bergoglio wants us to think the problem is clericalism, moral rigidity,…More
Note Bergoglio's reference to Ezechiel 16. The "shameless prostitute" is the "harlot of Babylon" described in Apocalypse 17. This "harlot" or "prostitute" is the apostate "Counterfeit Church" born of the errors of Vatican II, growing like a noxious weed for almost six decades, and now bearing fruit as the German Synodal Way.

Bergoglio wants us to think the problem is clericalism, moral rigidity, and failure to listen to the World. The actual problem is laicism, moral laxity, failure to enforce the perennial Magisterium.

His path perfectly inverts the Truth, and to follow him will lead us down to Hell rather than up to Heaven.
John A Cassani
There is a problem with clericalism. Clericalism is when clergy destroy the beautiful, simple faith of their flock in the name of progress. It has been the true mission of Vatican II.
Defeat Modernism
The man is your typical godless, faithless Modernist Heretic like Francis
Ultraviolet
Heresly is a charge the Church rules on, not random users on GTV.
The New Knights Templar
@Ultraviolet So what are you saying? That you don't believe Francis has been heretical?
Ultraviolet
I'm saying laymen do not have the Canonical authority to charge, try, or convict fellow Catholics or Catholic clergy, much less the Pope, of heresy.
123jussi
Whe we call Francis a heretic we are not arriving at a canonical judgement .you don't need an official diagnosis to know that someone is crazy any more than you need a copy of a death certificate to tell if someone is dead. Things can be very true but not " official".
The New Knights Templar
@Ultraviolet @Defeat Modernism wasn't making the claim in any official capacity, as to "charge try or convict" Francis, he was calling Francis a heretic because of some of the actions he has taken. I fully agree with him/her. Anyone who doesn't think Francis is a heretic for actions like the Pachamama stunt need to reevaluate their thinking.
Ultraviolet
"Defeat Modernism wasn't making the claim in any official capacity, as to "charge try or convict" Francis," he was calling Francis a heretic because of some of the actions he has taken. @The New Knights Templar

...and that's judging those actions (and the person who did them) against a Canonical charge, without the Church's authority to do so.

"Anyone who doesn't think Francis is a heretic …More
"Defeat Modernism wasn't making the claim in any official capacity, as to "charge try or convict" Francis," he was calling Francis a heretic because of some of the actions he has taken. @The New Knights Templar

...and that's judging those actions (and the person who did them) against a Canonical charge, without the Church's authority to do so.

"Anyone who doesn't think Francis is a heretic for actions like the Pachamama stunt need to reevaluate their thinking."

No True Scotsman Fallacy. In this instance, because errors contrary to Church teachings is not always heresy.

@123jussi "Whe we call Francis a heretic we are not arriving at a canonical judgement "

ORLY? Heresy is a Canonical charge and you're claiming he's guilty of it.

"you don't need an official diagnosis to know that someone is crazy any more than you need a copy of a death certificate to tell if someone is dead."

Both very bad examples. Actually, you should get an oficial diagnosis to know if someone is crazy. For example, some medications can cause side-effects of dementia. The person isn't "crazy" i.e mentally ill, they're simply having a bad reaction to medication. Likewise, far too many people throughout history have been taken for dead before a doctor discovereds they were actually in a deep coma.

Both your examples show, again, why making medical verdicts should be left to doctors and Canonical verdicts left to The Church.
123jussi
Heresy was a word long before there was any canon law and people were crazy long before there were psychiatrists and people were dead long before there were coroners so our right to use these words predates any of the legalisms you promote .
The New Knights Templar
@Ultraviolet "...and that's judging those actions (and the person who did them) against a Canonical charge, without the Church's authority to do so."

We ARE the Church and it's our DUTY to judge actions made against Church teachings even if these actions are made by shepherds within the authority of Church., we merely do so in an informal capacity, we don't hire a canonical lawyer. We don't …More
@Ultraviolet "...and that's judging those actions (and the person who did them) against a Canonical charge, without the Church's authority to do so."

We ARE the Church and it's our DUTY to judge actions made against Church teachings even if these actions are made by shepherds within the authority of Church., we merely do so in an informal capacity, we don't hire a canonical lawyer. We don't need the Church's authority to state an action is heresy, especially if stated in the comment section of a website.
---
"Anyone who doesn't think Francis is a heretic for actions like the Pachamama stunt need to reevaluate their thinking." "No True Scotsman Fallacy. In this instance, because errors contrary to Church teachings is not always heresy."

It isn't a No True Scotchman Fallacy. DELIBERATE errors contrary to Church teachings are heresy, especially ones such as intentional idolatry -- it's blatant heresy. So I'll present my original question to you which you ignored the first time. Are you saying you don't think Francis is heretical? [Edited here] Better yet let me rephrase the question. DO YOU think Francis is heretical?

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same..." (CCC 2089).
Ultraviolet
Correction, @The New Knights Templar: We are part of the Church, not THE Church.

"it's our DUTY to judge actions made against Church teachings even if these actions are made by shepherds within the authority of Church"

Since I'm pleased to see you're citing the Catechism later on, I'll assume you know how to effectively search it.

Cite the Catechism (you'd probably have better luck in Cano…More
Correction, @The New Knights Templar: We are part of the Church, not THE Church.

"it's our DUTY to judge actions made against Church teachings even if these actions are made by shepherds within the authority of Church"

Since I'm pleased to see you're citing the Catechism later on, I'll assume you know how to effectively search it.

Cite the Catechism (you'd probably have better luck in Canon Law, btw) where the laity are empowered and, as you claim, have a DUTY to judge a member of clergy is guilty of heresy.

"We merely do so in an informal capacity, we don't hire a canonical lawyer."

"Merely"
.... How nice... ;-) So the court of public opinion is now in session. Like most such courts it's one where those not trained in the law pretend that they are and make fatuous legal judgements.

"The People's Court"... :p The same court of public opinion where others also judge in an equally "informal capacity" that every Catholic priest is guilty of being a pedophile until he proves otherwise to their satisfaction. Yeah, no.

"We don't need the Church's authority to state an action is heresy, especially if stated in the comment section of a website."

You do need that authority if you wish your accusation to be valid (never mind a trial), or (absent that authority) you need to cite a Church ruling that found a verdict of heresy. Otherwise it lapses into the same pseudo-religious drivel the Lutherans love throwing around (more on that in a bit).
Ultraviolet
"It isn't a No True Scotchman Fallacy." @The New Knights Templar

Correct. It's a No True Scotsman Fallacy. :D

...because you're attempting to defend an assertion "Anyone who doesn't think Francis is a heretic for actions like the Pachamama stunt" by disallowing, by definition, all counterexamples (those people) "need to reevaluate their thinking."

It's a fallacy because it's entirely …More
"It isn't a No True Scotchman Fallacy." @The New Knights Templar

Correct. It's a No True Scotsman Fallacy. :D

...because you're attempting to defend an assertion "Anyone who doesn't think Francis is a heretic for actions like the Pachamama stunt" by disallowing, by definition, all counterexamples (those people) "need to reevaluate their thinking."

It's a fallacy because it's entirely possible for people to NOT think Francis is a heretic for actions like the Pachamama stunt without needing to reevaluate their thinking. You're presupposing your conclusion is valid, not having shown that it is so, and then discounting those who haven't reevaluated their thinking until they agree with you. Therein lies the fallacious appeal to purity, the "No True Scotchman", so to speak. ;-)

" DELIBERATE errors contrary to Church teachings are heresy, especially ones such as intentional idolatry -- it's blatant heresy."

Canon Law 751, which covers heresy, says no such thing This also exemplfies the dangers of judging heresy in a so-called "informal capacity". Canon Law also makes no such additional distinction concerning idolatry or any other errors. It states, simply:

--"Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;"--

A deliberate error and an obstinate error are not the same thing. I will explain why since Can. 751 covers the same ground (albeit worded differently) as CCC 2089, cf.

--"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same..."--

Notice that distinction. A "deliberate" error is not, in itself, heresy. It becomes heresy only through obstinacy.

None of which applies to Pope Francis' "Pachamama stunt" for the following reasons:

Obstinate" shows a deliberate course of action in the face of correction, i.e. "stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion."

(Merriam-Webster dictionary entry: "Obstinate")

An obstinate denial or an obstinate doubt (after baptism) shows that:

a.) the accused heretic has expressed a denial or doubt

b.) The Church has disgreed with that denial or doubt as contrary to some truth believed to be divine and Catholic faith.

c.) The Church has attempted to correct the accused heretic

d.) the accused heretic has opposed that correction by the Church and continued to deny or doubt that truth.

Regarding Pope Francis,
a.) His stunt, while astoundingly gauche, did not involve him publicly denying a "truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith" nor did he express "an obstinate doubt concerning the same"

More importantly points b.)-d.) have not yet occurred. These latter points raise a serious question...

Who has the temporal authority to represent the Church in correcting the supposed errors of the Church's highest temporal authority?

That isn't a rhetorical question, either, because only that individual (or group) could represent The Church in formally correcting the Pope's errors, i.e. points b.)- c.).

"So I'll present my original question to you which you ignored the first time."

I didn't ignore it. You asked, "So what are you saying? That you don't believe Francis has been heretical?"

,,,and I replied, "I'm saying laymen do not have the Canonical authority to charge, try, or convict fellow Catholics or Catholic clergy, much less the Pope, of heresy."

That is what I'm saying and those are my thoughts on the subject. I was concerned I might be accused of patronizing you by explicitly pointing that out. Now that I'm forced to, well... ;-)

"Are you saying you don't think Francis is heretical? [Edited here] Better yet let me rephrase the question. DO YOU think Francis is heretical?"

My own opinion is grounded in Canon Law and the Catechism you cited. I believe Pope Francis very probably has expressed errors. However, for those errors to be heretical and the Pope a heretic, it would require everything I've explained to occur and that has not happened. This is a legalist viewpoint, I know, but one of The Church's greatest strengths is that it has a detailed and precise set of laws and teachings which cover such important issues.

I'll give you a counter-example... the Lutheran-esque approach Defeat Modernism so painfully displays here.

Lutherans have a fondness for making baseless accusations with no further evidence than "sola scriptura", more precisely their own interpretations of it. Personally, I find the accusation that Pope Francis is a heretic and guilty of "intentional idolatry" as you call it especially ironic since Lutherans accuse Catholics, all Catholics, of idolatry as well.

Lutherans in the American South, the Baptists in particular, are prone to making this accusation given their "fire 'n brimstone" religious culture. At least when the accusations are made verbally, their lush regional dialect elevates a centuries old error into unintentional comedy...

"Yew Papists are all uh bunch of eye-doll worshi-purse with yer ferbiddn statues of Hour Lowerd and that Bloo Hore uh Babi-lon. As we read in Eggs-o-dus Twenny Verse Fower, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

...and that's what yew idol-worshippin' Papists are still doin' right here 'n now! Y'all gonna burn fer it, too."

Trying to explain why they're wrong using The Church's teachings is a waste of time.

You see... every Lutheran is his own self-appointed judge of idolatry and who is guilty of it. Their reasoning goes...

Scripture is the word of God and always correct.
The Lutheran's judgements are based on Scripture
Therefore the Lutheran's judgements are also always correct. :P

You're intelligent enough, I'm sure, to see the point I'm making and how it applies to accusations against Pope Francis. ;-)
The New Knights Templar
LMAO!!!! Since we're assuming, I'm assuming your name if "Karen".

I appreciate all your work, Karen, but I don't continue discussions with someone who is so anal-retentive that they feast on a typo. I get into discussions to enjoy them with people who follow their religion and respect others, not to endure them with people who "Merely"... How nice... ;-)" me to death out of arrogance. I can …More
LMAO!!!! Since we're assuming, I'm assuming your name if "Karen".

I appreciate all your work, Karen, but I don't continue discussions with someone who is so anal-retentive that they feast on a typo. I get into discussions to enjoy them with people who follow their religion and respect others, not to endure them with people who "Merely"... How nice... ;-)" me to death out of arrogance. I can find thousands like you on YouTube. No thanks.

So God Bless you, Karen, I truly mean that and I add you to my daily prayers!

I have nothing further and all your future responses and official "Pro-Tips" *lol* will be ignored.
Ultraviolet
"I'm assuming your name if "Karen"."

Now that's a new one. I'll add it to my list of "Stupid Things Stupid People Assume About Me". Yours'll get filed right below "UV's part of the JIDF". (Yes, I keep them alphabetized)

"but I don't hold discussions with those that split hairs between "We ARE the Church" and "We are PART of the Church","

Those "split hairs" are important distinctions. It's …More
"I'm assuming your name if "Karen"."

Now that's a new one. I'll add it to my list of "Stupid Things Stupid People Assume About Me". Yours'll get filed right below "UV's part of the JIDF". (Yes, I keep them alphabetized)

"but I don't hold discussions with those that split hairs between "We ARE the Church" and "We are PART of the Church","

Those "split hairs" are important distinctions. It's a pity you're incapable of recognizing that.

"because "we" (being all inclusive as I used it instead of we meaning you and me), MEANS all of us being a part of the Church ARE THE CHURCH."

Being part of an organization is not being the entire organization. You don't know how pronouns work. ;-)

"*sigh* Unless you think the building is the Church. (That's a sure sign that copious nitpicking would ensue from you (actually already has))."

Wrong. See my last point. I understood your reference to "The Church" as an organization. "We" (i.e. the all inclusive laity) are not The Church. "We are are members of The Church. See the distinction? Probably not.

"Nor do I bother wasting my time with someone who feasts on a typo"

Your fallacies and Catechism errors were the main course. A few typos here 'n there don't even rate as condiments. ;-)

"(That's a sure sign that arrogance is plentiful. My my, Karen, what great humility you have)."

That isn't arrogance, dummy . It's being sardonic. I can't fix stupid, but at least I can help with ignorance. Go look it up.

dictionary.com/browse/sardonic

"I get into discussion to enjoy them, not to endure them."

I've met your kind before. It's either "Ha! You didn't answer this particular point I made cuz I'm right!" or "Bawww... yer reply wuz too long."

"I have nothing further and all your future responses will be ignored. (You can have the trophy)."

Perhaps for having the last word... If there are trophies to be awarded, this one's all yours. ;-)
Advocata
Actual picture from Tagle. Looks weak.
Ultraviolet
He also looks like the next Pope. You heard it here first!