That isn't a "slight of hand" @Tony M
I'll thank you not to imply deceit on my part unless you've got better proof than a technical correction
. It is
a correction on my part because you are in error as you will soon learn.
Heresy is a precise term within the Catholic Church, and a formal charge.
Canon Law 751 states "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."
This is how people lie by subtly rephrasing Canon Law.
I underlined the word obstinate because The Church is making an important distinction. between an obstinate
act (denial or doubt) and an act (denial or doubt) per se
"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."
Citation (Merriam-Webster dictionary entry: "Obstinate")
denial or an obstinate
doubt shows that:
a.) the accused heretic has expressed a view
b.) The Church has disgreed with that view as contrary to its teachings.
c.) The Church has attempted to correct the accused heretic
d.) the accused heretic has opposed that correction by the Church.
Regarding Pope Francis,
a.) He has certainly expressed his views.
b.)-d.) have not.
We Catholic laity do not have the legal authority to represent the Roman Catholic Church in making legal judgements
, unless so authorized. A formal, lawful judgement of "heresy" must come from the Catholic Church, not the laity (that means you, bub). One may opine
someone's statements or actions constitute heresy, but it remains an informal and unofficial view, an opinion
, nothing more.
Second, please Canon Law where a Pope refusing to answer questions put to him by subordinates (i.e. the "Dubia") is defined as heresy. If you can't, then it isn't heresy much less "pertinacious" heresy or heresy done "pertinaciously"
as you claim.
You're not a canon lawyer and it shows. :D
Putting it a bit more bluntly, the Pope remains the Pope because you do not have sufficient ecclesiastical authority within the Church either to judge heresy or depose the Pope on those or any other grounds.
On that point, who does
have the temporal authority to represent The Church
in correcting the supposed errors of The Church's highest
I'm just scratching the surface of the subject, mostly using cut 'n paste from a previous article I wrote addressing this same error when it was made by someone else. If you'd like a more throrough treatment of the subject with loads of historical background included I refer you to CanonLawMadeEasy's more comprehensive treatment of the subject.
If you're wondering, I wrote my article independently of CanonLawMadeEasy. I was much gratified to note our points overlap and corroborate one another in several areas.