Is Bergoglio a Heretic?

JG

Catholics who accuse the pope of being a false prophet, a liar, a fake, a fraud, an antichrist, a false pope, a charlatan, or unholy are really treading a narrow line. They need to think of their own sinfulness before accusing somebody else, especially the pope, of such a serious thing.

Omitting

some comments. They were by people known to JG, but not to me.

HGL

"They need to think of their own sinfulness before accusing somebody else, especially the pope, of such a serious thing."

Why? Would a lecher not have a right to distance himself from a heresiarch?

Would a murderer not have such a right?

At what point of personal sin excluding heresy do you lose th right to distance yourself from heresy?

JG

Except, the pope is none of those things mentioned.

The ranting and raving is all because the pope says some things on non-dogmatic issues they don't like.

It's one thing to disagree with the Pope, but quite another to vilify him for a little thing you disagree with him on.

Too many Catholics look for the tiniest flaw of the pope, but wouldn't do the same with themselves. That is the point of what I said, Hans.

HGL

"Except the Pope is none of these things"

Have you checked Bergoglio's pronouncements about Creation in 2014?

JG

There is no dogmatic teaching on how long or short the Earth was created.

HGL

JG Trent said sth about going with Church Fathers on ALL exegetic decisions.

Also, denial of God doing things directly rather than by processes (in creation for instance of certain items Genesis 1), also denies God doing them by processes of a finite number of steps, bc the first step would anyway be God doing sth directly.

JG

Again, the Church never defined dogmatically the Earth's age. Unless a pope or the Magisterium defined something as dogma, it is not dogma.

Besides some Church Fathers taught things we do not believe, some of which are wrong: e.g. Origen believed in reincarnation and Tertullian believed in Montanism.

Ever heard of theistic evolution? It does not deny God directly created all things. It says God gradually created things, just as He gradually revealed Himself and His will to us.

HGL

"Again, the Church never defined dogmatically the Earth's age. Unless a pope or the Magisterium defined something as dogma, it is not dogma."

Unless it is dogma indirectly.

"Besides some Church Fathers taught things we do not believe, some of which are wrong: e.g. Origen believed in reincarnation and Tertullian believed in Montanism."

If all Church Fathers had believed Reincarnation or all had been Montanists (not the case and the two you mentioned are not even honoured as saints), we would as per Trent be obliged to the one having Patristic consensus.

"Ever heard of theistic evolution? It does not deny God directly created all things. It says God gradually created things, just as He gradually revealed Himself and His will to us."

If by gradually you mean over millions or billions of years, it is a heresy:

• goes against all Church Fathers
• goes against Mark 10:6
• goes against obvious sense of words in Genesis 1 (if a day has evening and morning, it is not metonymically for a longer period)
• is often coupled with the idea that hagiographers (not even accepting Moses as one author) wrote in "accepting ideas of their time" which undermines the divine inspiration of the Bible if extended to erroneous ones.

I think the fact that in defending Bergoglio against heresy, you show yourself heretical yourself speaks volumes about his pastoral and the pastoral of those accepting him as Pope.

Other status, JG, sharing a video:

JG

[omitting link to video]

There is no such thing as a good reason for leaving the Church. Saint Paul didn't leave because of Saint Peter's hypocrisy. Saints Catherine and Brigitte did not for for the same reason. We, the branches, cannot fall off from the vine which is the Church the mystical body of Christ. A branch that falls off withers and dies. We need the sacraments, namely the Holy Eucharist.

HGL

"Saint Paul didn't leave because of Saint Peter's hypocrisy."

We do not know that the Cephas in question was even St Peter.

It could have been another one of the name (and it seems Caiaphas and Cephas could be same name - Cephas (St Peter this time) perhaps even identified as illiterate because he pronounced it Cephas and not Caiaphas).

So, Cephas could well have been someone else's name.

"Saints Catherine and Brigitte did not for for the same reason."

They however did tell Popes what to do.

However, another saint, namely Saint Vincent Ferrer told to take care which of the Popes you accepted.

JG

There are no other Cephas known. Even so, the point still stands.

I'm aware Catherine and Brigitte rebuked the popes of their time. That's why I brought it up. But That's not the point. The point is even saints who rebuuked the popes of their time did not break communion.

HGL

"There are no other Cephas known."

Caiaphas seems to have had same name in Hebrew.

Also St Clement considered it was another (and Leo XIII considered him a Church Father) - one Church Father is sufficient unless the point is heretical (and you have no CF for Deep Time, btw).

"The point is even saints who rebuuked the popes of their time did not break communion."

The ones rebuking John XXII threatened to do so if he did not mend, that is what "withdraw obedience" reasonably means, no longer recognising him as Pope - it never came to that.

St Vincent Ferrer obviously broke communion with Avignon Popes.

Because he considered them fake Popes.

I think I read somewhere he had even been wrong on that before.

Breaking with a fake Pope is not breaking with the Church.