If you believe that the traditional teachings of the Church should be respected, Pope Francis really hates you. Too strong a statement? Not judging from what the Pope said yesterday:
The stunning introduction to today’s official Vatican Radio report on Pope Francis’ morning homily reads: “Pope Francis warned on Thursday against an excessive rigidity, saying those within the Church who tell us ‘it’s this or nothing’ are heretics and not Catholics. His remarks came during the morning Mass on Thursday celebrated at the Santa Marta residence.”
The specific section of the homily referred to in the opening is as follows:
This (is the) healthy realism of the Catholic Church: the Church never teaches us ‘or this or that.’ That is not Catholic. The Church says to us: ‘this and that.’ ‘Strive for perfectionism: reconcile with your brother. Do not insult him. Love him. And if there is a problem, at the very least settle your differences so that war doesn’t break out.’ This (is) the healthy realism of Catholicism. It is not Catholic (to say) ‘or this or nothing:’ This is not Catholic, this is heretical.
Jesus always knows how to accompany us, he gives us the ideal, he accompanies us towards the ideal, He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us.
Interpreting what Pope Francis is saying in a precise way has always been difficult. However, there has been a consistent theme in his remarks against what he refers to as ‘rigid’ Catholics who hold steadfastly to the ideals proposed by Christ and to absolutes. “Fundamentalism is a sickness that we find in all religions,” said the Pope in November while flying home from Africa. “Among Catholics there are many, not a few, many, who believe to hold the absolute truth,” he added. “They go ahead by harming others with slander and defamation, and they do great harm… And it must be combated.”
Go here to read the rest. Time to recall that the laity of the Church have a duty, not a right but a duty, to stand up for the orthodox teaching of the Church against all comers. Sadly that includes the Pope if necessary. The phrase “more Catholic than the Pope” will probably be used against Catholics who do stand up, but in this pontificate, regrettably, that is a low bar.
To be considered a heretic by Jorge Bergoglio is a badge of honor.
“He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’” I must have missed that in the bible. And in St. Faustina’s conversations with our Lord. I’m cracking myself up picturing poor St. Peter waiting at the pearly gates asking people, “so, uh, why exactly did you commit adultery?” According to the pope, the answer could be, “Well, I wasn’t capable of not doing it, so… you have to let me in.”
On a serious note, I have to ask… when Jesus said, “what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven” Are there certain stipulations? because this is beyond crazy.
I agree with the Pope that rigidity of thought that prevents mercy is not what Jesus wanted. The problem for me is that he is starting to appear to be a rigid liberal.
TomD, the comments on the LifeSite news page agree with you. One said, “Declaring an attitude to be heretical is “this or nothing”. So Francis has declared his own attitude to be heretical. This is interesting in a mathematical way…. a self-destroying proposition … but a church leader should be advocating for God, not for Godel.”
Missy, I don’t think it need be self-destroying. We are all sinners, and we all need to be forgiven, including the Pope. We just need to stick with the truth, not only to preserve it but to accurately know what needs to be forgiven.
The maddening thing is that he says these things back to back. He says that it’s wrong to insult people, and those who do are heretical (which sounds like an insult). He says hard things against people he claims are too hard, then follows it up by saying that we need to avoid hypocrisy! He talks about the need to not trade insults and live in peace, after comparing those he disagrees with to the scribes and Pharisees! There is a lack of self-awareness reflected in those statements that’s mind-boggling.
“Excessive” rigidity is wrong; you can’t rules-lawyer out of stuff. But “excessive” is…um… excessive. Kinda circular, innit?
I’d actually really be interested to know what he’s thinking about when he says this stuff. Very much reminds me of some cousins who will say very strong things, which make sense if you know what’s in their head…but they’ll be horrified and shocked at your lack of telepathy. 😀
I recall a recent article by Father Rutler telling the story of a mother’s plea for the life of her son to Napoleon who had issued an order to shoot any soldier absent without leave. The mother asked Napoleon to have mercy on her AWOL son to which Napoleon replied that the son did not deserve mercy. The mother said, you are correct that he does not deserve mercy for if he did it would not be mercy. The soldier was spared the firing squad. It is still wrong to go AWOL.
Napoleon dearly loved his own mother. I am not surprised that he granted the request of such a clever mother.
“The phrase ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ will probably be used against Catholics who do stand up, but in this pontificate, regrettably, that is a low bar.” I’m sure I’m not alone in having already experienced this from liberal, non-Catholic colleagues who consider Pope Francis to be the best thing that’s ever happened to the Church, and who laugh their posteriors off at me when I try to point out how contrary to Catholic tradition he really is. (Come to think of it, I have a liberal Catholic fellow parishioner who would agree with them, unfortunately.) It’s sadly funny how many Papal Positivists have suddenly appeared among liberal Catholics and even non-Catholics, considering (as Francis himself seems to) any random ill-considered thought to which he gives expression to be magisterially binding upon all Catholics (not themselves, of course, and not when he does, thank God, still affirm the evil of abortion).
A heretic to believe in;
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/illinois-bishop-upholds-priests-decision-to-deny-communion-to-pro-abortion
915 is in action.
I can’t believe my eyes.
It’s a start.
Thank God for the moxie of Bishop and Priest.
If Canon 915 was enforced prior to 2008, do you suppose as many Catholics would of voted the lil’ king into office?
The unborn suffer at the hands of our Church leadership. Canon 915 is a clear teaching moment for All Catholics. Pro-death? Reconcile and receive Holy communion or do not approach the Sacrament if your a politician. Not a difficult decision.
Either your in communion with what the Church teaches or your not. As a public figure your actions speak volumes, and when it comes to human life or death, you better check your conscience… twice if it’s not formed.
Old news…2014.
Slipped by. My Apology.
I am a catechist in a parish with two priests who are major Francis fans, Teaching and answering questions from adults in RCIA can be daunting. I might not teach this year.
Anzlyne.
Please don’t cave in to the temptation to fold your hand. Be patient and serve God. Remember that these times are small segments…and that the larger picture will prevail regardless of the current pontificate and it’s fans. Your orthodoxy is valuable to these catechumens.
I hope you don’t mind my opinion.
After my last post I’m embarrassed to post anything, however I feel strongly about your position.
Peace and blessings.
” … He frees us from the chains of the laws’ rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable.’ And he understands us very well. He is our Lord and this is what he teaches us. …”
– from the June 9th words, which seem weighted to further another aspect of the gradualism afoot.
Matthew 5: 17 -20 recounts Jesus’ words about the law, at the sea of Galilee, right after the Sermon on the Mount, before His parables, when he also met John the Baptist’s disciples sent by imprisoned John to Him.
Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew’s Gospel is packed with reinforcement for the way of life found pleasing.
Oh, the link below is for a petition to help the ones persecuted for pointing out a Fifth (even Sixth) Commandment breaker.
https://secure.giveworks.net/operationrescue/justice_for_david_and_s2
P.F.: “Do this up to the point you are capable.”
This statement is heretical in my opinion. What happened to the strength that God given grace provides to help us avoid sin? Pope Francis makes it sound like good intentions are the road to heaven when we have been taught that good intentions are the road to hell. Jesus teaches that we will not be tempted beyond our strength to resist. Therefore, if we fail it is our fault. Pope Francis is clearly wrong regarding our culpability in sinning. When we fail we must confess. Telling the priest that you we’re not capable of not sinning will not get you absolution. This like saying sinning is not your fault. Doing this renders confession pointless.
In Matthew 5:33-37, which is today’s Gospel reading, the Lord makes it clear that your yes should be Yes, and no be no….”anything more is from the evil one.”
Jesus said to his disciples:”You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow. But I say to you do not swear at all; not by Heaven for it is Gods throne; nor by earth for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city if the great King.
Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
Let your Yes mean Yes, and your No mean No.
Anything more is from the evil one.”
As always… prayers for Pope Francis.
Prayers for conversion.
I was thinking (there he goes again) that this diatribe is Orwellian. Then, I thought of an OT passage: “Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil.”
Not every statement that’s ambiguous or even incomplete is necessarily heretical. The Church is always careful not to throw that word around. Usually there are investigations to determine exactly what a statement is intended to mean. So I’m not going to call Francis’s statement heretical.
But where is his clarity when he uses the word? As he holds the office of universal teacher of the True Faith, there’s no more weighty word he can use than “heretical”. It’s irresponsible for him to use the word in an ambiguous way. You know, we’re out here trying to live our lives according to the Faith. We need instruction. It doesn’t help us when the pope waves his finger in a general direction and says “those guys over there are heretical”. I need to know who, and why. I need to be able to defend myself against their errors. My soul is at stake! Your Holiness, don’t allude to heresy without context. Define it.
Thank you Pinky
Pinky–
Good comment on heretical. Pope Francis casually throws this word around as if it some kind of verbal spitball making it quite acceptable for us to return the favor. His target?: Anyone who disagrees with him. Sussing-out what he means by anything he says is problematic. Take for example: “those within the Church who tell us ‘it’s this or nothing’ are heretics”. Is this a negative reference to Cardinal Sarah’s book, ‘God or Nothing’ or an axiom of his situation ethics or who knows what? And another, “Among Catholics there are many, not a few, many, who believe to hold the absolute truth,…” Does this mean PF supports relativism and situation ethics believing there is no absolute truth?
What is the point of PF ranting about heretics? I think it is directed at us. We are the heretics. Why? Because we actually believe what the Catholic Church has taught since the beginning, and worse we demand that our Pope and bishops believe it and teach it also.
But I do think we know what he means by all this ranting about heretical Catholics. He is talking about us, orthodox Catholics, who actually believe what the Church has taught since the beginning.
I was once ” accused” of being more Catholic than the Catholic Church by a Catholic priest whom I truly love. He was insisting and in fact forcing face to face Reconciliation. I was teaching 9th grade CCD. He was furious that I challenged his authority. The children we’re supposed to have the “option ” which they were not provided.
Michael Dowd said, “Take for example: ‘those within the Church who tell us “it’s this or nothing” are heretics’. Is this a negative reference to Cardinal Sarah’s book, ‘God or Nothing’ or an axiom of his situation ethics or who knows what?” … Temporal context is telling, and Card. Sarah has made some recent traditionalist statements which I am sure are not to the Holy Father’s liking.
To Anzlyne, perhaps a wise choice — not to teach catechism in the coming year, given the circumstances.
…
This pope continues to become unhinged.
…
I wonder if St. Athanasius was “too rigid”. Certainly SS. Thomas More and Edmund Campion, Robert Southwell, and companions. The latter, being Jesuit saints, will have an interesting conversation at the entrance to the pearl gates with this marvel.
Heresy, apostasy, schism
That Pope Francis does not hold the Catholic Faith, that he does not believe, is clear to me.
Until I read your last line, @FMShyanguya, you had me concerned.
..
Usually that canon is “read at” people who ask what the hell [literally] the pope is doing.
…
No problem.. you brought it all together at the end.
@StevePhoenix: No worries. While some say they had ominous reaction when Pope Francis appeared on the balcony upon his election, my epiphany was a year into is papacy (2014): foot washing + Kasper and
hisPope Francis’ proposal. Now my Pope Francis’ assessment above is beyond any doubt; the evidence is overwhelming. Before then, I even had The Pope App and would read his daily Santa Marta homilies. We now know the true purpose of those.Pinky wrote, “Your Holiness, don’t allude to heresy without context. Define it”
The past practice of the Magisterium is instructive here. As Bl John Henry Newman explains, “As to the condemnation of propositions all she tells us is, that the thesis condemned when taken as a whole, or, again, when viewed in its context, is heretical, or blasphemous, or impious, or whatever like epithet she affixes to it. We have only to trust her so far as to allow ourselves to be warned against the thesis, or the work containing it. Theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success; but that determination is not de fide; all that is of faith is that there is in that thesis itself, which is noted, heresy or error, or other like peccant matter, as the case may be, such, that the censure is a peremptory command to theologians, preachers, students, and all other whom it concerns, to keep clear of it. But so light is this obligation, that instances frequently occur, when it is successfully maintained by some new writer, that the Pope’s act does not imply what it has seemed to imply, and questions which seemed to be closed, are after a course of years re-opened. In discussions such as these, there is a real exercise of private judgment and an allowable one; the act of faith, which cannot be superseded or trifled with, being, I repeat, the unreserved acceptance that the thesis in question is heretical, or the like, as the Pope or the Church has spoken of it”
The context for that might be useful, MPS.
https://the-american-catholic.com/2013/10/19/cardinal-newman-on-papal-infallibility/
If you’d like to argue that a homily– even a homily by the Pope– meets all the requirements listed in #2 for the third paragraph of #11 to apply, you of course can– but I seem to remember that was already ruled out in part because of some popes who theorized a lot during their homilies and some of their theories were later ruled out or even debunked. (I know a couple did the conflation of Mary Magdalene and the adulteress, for a low-octane example.)
Foxfier
I was referring expressly to the definition and condemnation of heresies.
Usually, even in the most solemn documents, they were made by condemning a quotation or summary, without any preamble or explanation. As Newman points out, it is left to theologians to explain wherein the error lies.
Often enough, a great many quotations are listed. In Unigenitus, there are 101, followed by a global condemnation, “Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned,” without specifying which epithet or epithets apply to a given proposition.
It has been maintained by theologians of note that some of the 101 propositions, taken in isolation and in an orthodox sense, are innocuous, but are censured in the context and as part of the system in which they occur.
This hardly complies with Pinky’s wish for clarity of definition. Rather it is a warning against the teachings of Quesnel and his supporters.
Nevertheless, subscription of Unigenitus was imposed on the clergy. There was enormous resistance, with bishops and priests appealing to a future Council (and being excommunicated for their pains in “Pastoralis Officii” 1718). As late as 1756, dissenters were still being denied the Last Rites.
MPS-
if you can’t see the difference between
listing 101 specific quotes from a specific book, organized by topic, giving a long list of why they are condemned and then decrying the author BY NAME
and
the pope’s ‘only a sith deals in absolutes’ line,
I can’t help you.
You did not address that your relatively short quote, when in context, clearly does not apply to what Pinky said at all.
You did not address that your quote is on infallibility— that thing triggered when the Pope teaches definitively on faith and morals?
As in, does exactly what Pinky asked that he do?