Saturday, September 23, 2017


I hate that this is being nailed to the door of Santa Marta, Pope Francis' place of residence and also nailed to the internet, but here we go again! Will this be celebrated by the Vatican 500 years from now?


And read the names of those who signed it here.

Associated Press Report:

Theologians accuse pope of heresy

VATICAN CITY — Several dozen tradition-minded Roman Catholic theologians, priests and academics have formally accused Pope Francis of spreading heresy with his 2016 opening to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

In a 25-page letter delivered to Francis last month and provided Saturday to The Associated Press, the 62 signatories issued a “filial correction” to the pope — a measure they said hadn’t been employed since the 14th century.

The letter accused Francis of propagating seven heretical positions concerning marriage, moral life and the sacraments with his 2016 document “The Joy of Love” and subsequent “acts, words and omissions.”

The initiative follows another formal act by four tradition-minded cardinals who wrote Francis last year asking him to clarify a series of questions, or “dubbia,” they had about his 2016 text.

Francis hasn’t responded to either initiative. The Vatican spokesman didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment late Saturday.

None of the signatories of the new letter is a cardinal, and the highest-ranking churchman listed is actually someone whose organization has no legal standing in the Catholic Church: Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the breakaway Society of St. Pius X. Several other signatories are well-known admirers of the old Latin Mass which Fellay’s followers celebrate.

But organizers said the OVERSET FOLLOWS:initiative was nevertheless significant and a sign of the concern among a certain contingent of academics and pastors over Francis’ positions, which they said posed a danger to the faithful.

“There is a role for theologians and philosophers to explain to people the church’s teaching, to correct misunderstandings,” said Joseph Shaw, a spokesman for the initiative, signatory of the correction and senior research fellow in moral philosophy at Oxford University.

When it was released in April 2016, “The Joy of Love” immediately sparked controversy because it opened the door to letting civilly remarried Catholics receive Communion. Church teaching holds that unless these Catholics obtain an annulment — a church decree that their first marriage was invalid — they cannot receive the sacraments.

Francis didn’t create a church-wide pass for these Catholics, but suggested — in vague terms and strategically placed footnotes — that bishops and priests could do so on a case-by-case basis after accompanying them on a spiritual journey of discernment.

Organizers said the last time such a correction was issued was to Pope John XXII in 1333 for errors which he later recanted.


ByzRC said...

Time to pick sides, I'm afraid.

Mark Thomas said...

"...we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness."

"The signatories respectfully insist that Pope Francis condemn the heresies that he has directly or indirectly upheld, and that he teach the truth of the Catholic faith in its integrity."

"We respectfully ask for Your Holiness’s apostolic blessing..."

Pope Francis, heresy is attached to you...but..."We respectfully ask for Your Holiness’s apostolic blessing..."

The "filial correction" folks insist that heresy swirls about Pope Francis...but implore the heresy-tainted Pope to bless them?

That doesn't make sense. this the big-time, "unbelievable" news that certain "traditional" Catholics touted as about to break in Rome?

1. We have a nothing story.

2. The "filial correction" is meaningless to 99.99999999999999999999999999999 percent of Catholics.

3. Here is all that I need to know in regard to the "filial correction" in question:

"The Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See."

— The Creed of Pope Saint Hormisdas, as promoted by the First Vatican Council.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

The "filial correction" in question extends far beyond His Holiness Pope Francis.

The "filial correction" must be applied to each Cardinal and bishop who has insisted that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox.

For that matter, each Catholic diocese on earth partakes in the so-called "heresies" that swirl supposedly about Pope Francis as each diocese on earth has accepted Amoris Laetitia as orthodox. are just a few Churchmen who require "filial correction" as they have insisted that Amoris Laetitia is orthodox:

Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Müller, Cardinal Sarah, bishops of Poland, bishops of Costa Rica, bishops of Alberta and The Northwest Territories, Archbishop Cordileone, and Archbishop Chaput.

Cardinal DiNardo, Cardinal Wuerl, Bishop Morlino, Archbishop Gomez...

Bishop Stephen Lopes, of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.

Bishop Philip Egan, Diocese of Portsmouth, England.

Each Catholic who accepts Amoris Laetitia as orthodox requires "correction."

The "filial correction" folks have, in effect, condemned one Catholic after another as "heretical."


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

From the 62 "filial correction" folks:

"With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness."

From Cardinal Burke in regard to Amoris Laetitia:

"How, then, is the document to be received? First of all, it should be received with the profound respect owed to the Roman pontiff as the Vicar of Christ..."

If the 62 "filial correction" folks are correct, then Cardinal Burke's above declaration is beyond's a danger to the Faith.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

From the 62 "filial correction" folks:

"With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness."

Cardinal Burke:

Catholic World Report: "Some critics say you are implicitly accusing the Pope of heresy."

Cardinal Burke: "No, that's not what we have implied at all."

Catholic World Report: "Just to clarify again, are you saying that Pope Francis is in heresy or is close to it?"

Cardinal Burke: "No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy. I have never said that.

*********** Neither have I stated that he is close to being in heresy. ************


Cardinal Burke is not even close to being on board with the 62 "filial correction" folks in regard to the notion that heresy is, somehow, associated with His Holiness Pope Francis.

In regard to Amoris Laetitia and heresy, the 62 "filial correction" folks are, in dramatic fashion, out of touch with those empowered by God to teach, govern, and sanctify the Holy People of God — that is, Cardinals/bishops who reject the notion that heresy swirls about Pope Francis.

The 62 "filial correction" folks are out of touch with the Magisterium.


Mark Thomas

James said...

They should have spent less time on fancy web design and more on getting one or two decent signatories, rather than this motley bunch of self-publicists and schismatics.

It's weird, but speaks volumes, that Fr Hunwicke gives an Anglican post he once held as his accolade.

Bernard Fischer said...

I see Mark Thomas ate his Wheaties last night. I enjoy reading his comments wherein he selectively quotes other churchmen to defend Francis against people who selectively quote Francis. Ironically, Rorate and some of the other trad groups represented among the signers DID half-heartedly accuse Cardinal Burke of heresy when he initially defended AL from it's critics.

But on a more serious note, wasn't there already a group of theologians or other academics who wrote a letter to Francis last year on this subject? And didn't some group of priests ask for clarification? Nothing happened then, so probably nothing will happen now.

Gerry Davila said...

By the way, Father, this isn't Protestantism. It's more like the very Catholic case of John XXII.

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

If Santita told you that the host should be made of chocolate and the wine, ginger ale, you would slobber over him and defend him. You simply are not a credible defender.

The best way to get rid of Pope Francis is for the Pope to follow his own advice in Laudatio Si: Turn off the air conditioning at the Vatican. He would be gone in a New York minute

Mark Thomas said...

ByzRC said..."Time to pick sides, I'm afraid."

ByzRC, it has always been time to "pick sides." For a Catholic, there is just one side...the side of the Vicar of Christ...the side of the Church of Rome...the side of the Apostolic See.

Here is the side to pick:

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.

"For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," should not be verified.

"And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate."

That is the orthodox Catholic Faith. One either stands with the Apostolic See or one displeases and shakes his fist at God.

The True Church, which is taught, governed, and sanctified by Pope Francis, trumps the claims of 62 members of the Filial Correction Club.

The Holy People of God stand with His Holiness Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Bernard Fischer said..."I see Mark Thomas ate his Wheaties last night."

Yep...I then read the teachings of the True Church, which informed me that "the Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate in the Apostolic See."


Bernard Fischer said..."Ironically, Rorate and some of the other trad groups represented among the signers DID half-heartedly accuse Cardinal Burke of heresy when he initially defended AL from it's critics."


Several "trad groups" attacked Cardinal Burke (and all Churchmen who declared Amoris Laetita orthodox) viciously as he refused to label AL "heretical."

Some wonderful "traditional" Catholics were enraged to the point that they attached homosexuality to Cardinal Burke.

That is the level of rage that exists among anti-Pope Francis "trad groups". They are filled with vicious people who spew venom at His Holiness Pope Francis as well as anybody, including Cardinal Burke, who doesn't march in lockstep with right-wing opinions and bizarre conspiracy theories.

Conversely, the Holy People of God march in lockstep with the True Church, in submission to Pope Francis...not 62 members of the Filial Correction Club.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas, go to the doctor tomorrow and get some blood pressure medication.

Why all the fuss. This letter will be ignored just like the dubia, just like the almost 1 million signatures begging the pope to uphold the teachings of the Church. It will probably make him lash out more against faithful Catholics. The only thing that will save the Church at this point is Our Lady comming to the rescue. Francis needs to go but all in God's time.

Mark Thomas said...

My favorite part of the "filial correction" is where, after having linked heresy to His Holiness Pope Francis, the 62 members of the Filial Correction Club state...

"We respectfully ask for Your Holiness’s apostolic blessing..."


Pope Francis, we attach heresy to you...but...ummm..."We respectfully ask for Your Holiness’s apostolic blessing..."

That demonstrates the absurdity and bizarre thinking of the 62 members of the Filial Correction Club.

Why would Catholics wish to be graced with an Apostolic Blessing from a bishop who wallows supposedly in heresy? Unbelievable.


Mark Thomas

Gene said...

Nothing will happen. We have an apostate Church.

rcg said...

Mark, please abreviate your posts. Paraphrase succinctly the points you want address and perhaps give citation of paragraph, page, etc. when you quote at length it makes appears that you are trying to drown out discussion. Assume we have read it. If our response indicates otherwise, see above.

When I read this letter last night I noted that the authors very carefully avoid accusing the Holy Father of being the source of the heresies but declare that he is essentially vending them in his documents or ignoring them in circumstances when he should make either a correction or present a contrast of Church teaching with a heresy. I think asking for his blessing is a way of letting him know he is 'innocent until proven guilty' or could even repudiate his own previous position and remain in good standing.

BTW, it seems that by not answering he has essentially admitted their accusations. I think poor Pope Francis is a victim in this as much as anyone. He has been given a raft of positions to defend and has charged both secular and Church laws head on with no capability to defend the counter attacks. The people ghosting his documents should stand up right now and do battle with their peers in this letter and the dubia before it. Instead, they leave him to twist in the wind. Pope Francis has that in common with laity, at least.

John Nolan said...

I was expecting an inordinately lengthy rebuttal from Mark Thomas, full of non-sequiturs. The more interesting comment came next. I quote: 'this motley bunch of self-publicists and schismatics.'

If you don't like the message, then shoot the messenger. When I looked at the signatories, I recognized some whom I know personally, others whose writings I have come across or whose lectures I have attended, and the majority whom I have not encountered (though it's hardly their fault).

In fact I spoke to one of the prime movers of the Correctio only this morning, since we sing in the same schola.

None of the signatories is, as far as I am aware, schismatic. If they were, they would not be submitting a filial correction to the Holy Father, since they would have already broken with him.

As for self-publicists, it is easy to castigate those who have had their works published or who blog on the internet. But anyone who has met Fr Thomas Crean OP (one of the signatories) would have to agree that he is the antithesis of a self-publicist.

The text of the Correctio is indeed hard-hitting, but it is undeniably true. I can't see Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Brandmüller objecting to a sentence of it. They may not sign (for the moment at least) but I would be very surprised if the 62 were not to be joined by others.

Fr Hunwicke cites his senior Fellowship, recognized by the University of Oxford, as his chief academic achievement. I have degrees from Durham University and King's College London, both Anglican foundations. Nothing weird about that.

What speaks volumes is that some commentators are so impervious to truth that they resort to lying about those who have the temerity to speak it. 'James', whoever he is, is contemptible.

Dialogue said...

I'm surprised this is getting any attention, since the signatories are all persons of little or no importance in academic or ecclesiastical circles. If anything, this stunt could diminish a future serious correction from a group of cardinals or prominent theologians.

Tony V said...

I don't think this statement--which I've only begun to read--is that unique. People have corrected or attempted to correct pontiffs since the time of Peter and Paul. Sometimes they paid with their lives. In our own time, we've seen the dissent to Humanae Vitae; in the 19th century, we see the tragedy of those who dared stand up to the novelty of Pio Nono's declaration of infallibility.

No doubt there are some cardinals and bishops who sympathise with it, but let's face it--most of those guys are career men. Don't expect courage. How many stood up against Paul VI's bizarre liturgical innovations? How many stuck around to vote 'non placet' to Pastor Aeternus? (Hint: it's the same number.) And after all, this was a 'filial' correction, not a 'fraternal' correction from Francis's brother bishops.

TJM said...

Tony V,

You miss a very important point: With Humanae Vitae it was dissenters who objected to inverterate Church teaching. With Amoris Laetitiae you have a papal pronouncement which conflicts with inveterate Church teaching. A HUGE difference.

Bean said...

"Nothing will happen. We have an apostate Church."

NO, "we" don't. Not by a long shot.

And if you really, truly believe the Holy Spirit has left the Church, it is time for you to seek greener pastures.

If you remain, you show yourself to be altogether without substance.
Altogether. Without. Substance.

Dialogue said...

It's my understanding that VCII proposed four principal goals for our era: to reinvigorate Catholics, to reform Catholic institutions, to bring all Christians into the Catholic Church, and to bring all men of good will into Christianity. We need a new ecumenical council to clearly clarify these four goals, or else we'll see our Holy Mother Church keep crumbling away bit by bit with secondary controversies.

James said...

Once again, John pops up to defend the indefensible. And again, his ignorance beggars belief.

Pusey House is not, and never was, part of the University of Oxford. It's a privately funded Anglican institution whose staff are appointed by its principal, who is an Anglican clergyman. Fr Hunwicke's Senior Research Fellowship was a temporary unpaid position, with no connection to the University of Oxford. As Fr Hunwicke informs us on his own blog - if you'd bothered to check, John - this was just an honorary post he held while priest of St Thomas the Martyr's (Anglican) church.

My point, which John ignores, is that it's pretty rum for a Catholic convert accusing the Pope of heresy to cite this temporary role as his position (even if describing it as an ex- position).

Sorry to hear you had to rough it at Durham and KCL, John: I'm an Oxford man myself...

George said...

Pope John XXII, in some of his sermons did convey that that those who died in the faith did not see the presence of God until the Last Judgment. He continued this argument for a time in sermons while he was pope, although he never taught it in official documents. He did eventually change his position. Despite holding for many years a view widely held to be heretical, John XXII is not considered a heretic because the doctrine he had contradicted had not been formally defined by either him or the Church. His successor, Benedict XII, addressed it in the encyclical Benedictus Deus, which formally defined this doctrine as part of Church teaching.

As for the case of Pope Honorius, he was condemned by his successor not for heresy, but for negligence in allowing and not suppressing it.

Mark Thomas said...

John Nolan said..."I was expecting an inordinately lengthy rebuttal from Mark Thomas, full of non-sequiturs."

Mister Nolan, as a lowly nobody, that is about the best that I have to offer.

Anyway...Holy Mother Church has rebutted the 62 folks who formed the Filial Correction Club via the following:

1. The Church of Rome promulgated Amoris Laetitia.

2. Each Catholic diocese accepted Amoris Laetitia as official Church teaching.

3. The Holy Catholic Church does not teach heresy.

That is good enough for me.

However, the Filial Correction Club declared that Amoris Laetitia is loaded with heresies. Therefore, if the Filial Correction Club is correct, then the Catholic Church teaches heresy.

Take your pick. We can side with the Holy Catholic Church. Or we can side with the Filial Correction Club.

Mister Nolan, I will side with the Holy Catholic Church.

Thank you. Peace and good health to you and your family.


Mark Thomas

P.S. Note to the Filial Correction Club: "The Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate in the Apostolic See."

That is the faith of the Holy Catholic Church.

John Nolan said...

James, perhaps you might give us the benefit of your superior Oxford education and name one of the signatories whom you can prove to be a schismatic. Better still, tell us where the document is factually inaccurate.

On your point of information concerning Fr Hunwicke, I am happy to concede it. It wasn't your main point in any case.

Not that anyone is accusing the Pope of heresy; I would have thought an Oxford man would be more discriminating in his comments. You don't mean the former Polytechnic, by any chance?

Joe Potillor said...

THe Pope, for better or for worse has placed himself in this position by refusing to be clear on certain things. (Yet, amazing how he finds time for issues that matter to him)....ALl of this has made me re-examine the role of the Pope....I really don't think that the role can be justified as to the role it's ballooned to today.

TJM said...


An Oxford man would not engage in ad hominem which appears to be your stock and trade. It appears you have a long ways to catch up with John Nolan's erudition.

Victor said...

The Pope will just ignore this filial correction, as he has the dubia questions. As a Modernist, he must be laughing at all this because the Modernist tactic is to create ambiguous documents, so that they can be interpreted in various ways, but always including the Modernist way. We see this in the way Amoris laetitia can be interpreted to allow unrepentant adulterers to receive Communion (the path for this had already been set after the Council by the Modernists suppressing St Paul's warning on receiving the Eucharist unworthily in the Mass readings.) The same tactic was used at the Vatican II Council. Initially a minority of well organised Modernists, they succeeded in placing enough ambiguity in the texts, particularly that on the liturgy, that they were able after the Council to completely get their way in changing Church teaching and her liturgy.

Gene said...

Bean, you wouldn't know substance if it bit you in the butt. The Church is in deep trouble, with a weak Pope and a huge number of unbelieving Priests who view the Church as nothing more than a social institution for the promotion of humanistic causes. There are no greener pastures. I sought them from within protestantism for years, then came to the Church only to find that the Church is following in protestant footsteps. I remain, hoping that the "smoke of Satan" will be cleared from the Sanctuaries.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas wrote "Note to the Filial Correction Club: "The Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate in the Apostolic See."
AL explicitly states that some people just can't follow the commandments. That is a heresy that was defin d as such by Trent.

True. The Catholic Church cannot error. But a man who is invalidly "elected" pope is not preserved from error.

There are real, serious questions as to the validity of the election of Francis. A man may be baptized a Catholic but through his words, omissions and actions clearly shows he doesn't believe in the Catholic Faith, is not a Catholic, cannot be elected pope. Likewise it is forbidden to scheme and plot to secure the election of a pope. Cardinal Daneels and McCarrick and Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O Conor implied that they schemed to get Bergoglio elected. That is a clear violation on Pope John Paul II constitution on papal elections.

No pope has the power to invent anything. The duty of the pope is to preserve, teach and defend the teachings of the Church. He can't suddenly change truth. Francis can put a tiara on his head, and stand on the balcony of St. Peter's and state that some people are incabable of obeying the 10 Commandments. That doesn't make it true. It would make him a heretic.

Francis wants discussion let's discuss. Oh wait. He refuses to even meet with Cardinal Burke I forgot.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."Mark Thomas wrote "Note to the Filial Correction Club: "The Catholic Religion has always been preserved immaculate in the Apostolic See."
AL explicitly states that some people just can't follow the commandments. That is a heresy that was defin d as such by Trent."

"True. The Catholic Church cannot error. But a man who is invalidly "elected" pope is not preserved from error."

-- The Catholic Church proclaims daily that Pope Francis is Her Pope.

-- Each Catholic diocese on earth has accepted and promoted Amoris Laetitia as official Catholic teaching.

Therefore, the supposed "heresy" taught by Amoris Laetitia goes far beyond His Holiness Pope Francis. As one diocese after another on earth has accepted and implemented Amoris Laetitia, the Church throughout the world teaches heresy (supposedly).

One Cardinal and bishop after another, via their acceptance and promotion of Amoris Laetitia, has fallen into heresy (supposedly).

But back to the beginning. The Church of Rome, via Amoris Laetitia, teaches heresy. Therefore, the following, which is the faith of the Holy Catholic Church, is false (supposedly):

"The Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See."

If Amoris Laetitia is heretical, then the Church of Rome is well as each Catholic diocese on earth.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."But a man who is invalidly "elected" pope is not preserved from error. There are real, serious questions as to the validity of the election of Francis."

There are? Is the Holy Catholic Church aware of that? Hmmm...somebody had best inform the True Church about that as She elected Cardinal Bergoglio as Her Pope.


Mark Thomas

Henry said...

As I understand it, the “filial correction” does not assume that Amoris Laetitia contains objectively heretical assertions. It does not contest the Church, the Papacy, or the Magisterium; it is rather an attempt and defend uphold them.

What it does address is the undeniable fact that Church officials in various countries have advanced heretical interpretations that they claim are implied by Amoris Laetitia, thereby misleading the faithful.

The signers of the “correction” simply ask the Pope to defend the pristine teachings of Holy Mother Church and its Magisterium by refuting these heretical and therefore presumably erroneous interpretations of AL. The defense of the Faith—and the protection of the faithful from error—is, after all, the primary responsibility of the Office of Peter.

Perhaps those attacking the signatories of this “correction” erroneously assume that Amoris Laetitia is itself part of this Magisterium, a part of the official teaching of the Church. It is not. Fr. Hunwicke, one of the signers, points to the pope’s own disclaimer of AL’s magisterial status in his post today:

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

Even the College of Cardinals makes mistakes. Does Rodrigo Borgia ring a bell?

Anonymous said...

Invalidly elected--------huh? How was it invalid? Of course it would be nice to know who the candidates were and what was discussed, but as usual laity are kept out of the loop on that---even after it has happened.

Maybe some Catholics will take another look at the Eastern Orthodox Church, which never had a Reformation to deal with........

ByzRC said...

Joe Potillor -

I agree with your assessment. I believe that, among other things, our Orthodox brothers and sisters would require an examination of the papacy, its scope, appropriate limitations and overreach of authority before ever considering reunification. While I don't personally believe reunification will ever happen (and, it would seem, neither do they), this assessment would likely highlight the drift that has occurred since the early church.

As you suggested, papal focus is currently upon that which is of interest to the Pope. As an absolute monarch, he is empowered to act in this way. The danger here is that occupants of the office can pull the church one way or, the other based upon personal agenda.

John Nolan said...


I don't object to ad hominem attacks per se. I was the one who referred to James as 'contemptible' in that instead of addressing the substance of the document he chose to malign the signatories as 'a motley bunch of self-publicists and schismatics'.

Even were this remotely true, which it isn't, and which therefore brands the said James as a liar, it is reminiscent of an anti-intellectual attitude prevalent in higher education in the period 1968-1974 which effectively said 'We have identified this man as being right-wing and so have no interest in listening to his arguments; he has no right to free speech.'

Oxford was not immune. Durham at that time was an oasis of sanity and tolerance.

The same thing is rearing its ugly head again - this time anyone who is perceived to be unsympathetic to the noisily advanced agenda of the LGBTQWERTY camp (pun intended) is to be 'no-platformed'. O the intolerance of youth!

John Nolan said...

Byz RC

The pope is not an absolute monarch. The First Vatican Council made that abundantly clear. I would suggest our Orthodox brothers look at the history of the Eastern Church with its tendency to Caesaro-papalism. At the time of the Iconoclastic controversy it was the Western Church, led by the papacy, which stood out for orthodoxy.

Pope Francis cannot change doctrine on a whim. His faults are that he talks too much and in an imprecise manner, refuses to fulfill his primary role of 'confirming the brethren', and has so far done nothing, in word or deed, to prevent the spread of heretical opinions - worse, some of his accredited statements would appear to encourage such interpretations. His view on tradition, that it is something we work towards through discussion, is truly bizarre, even by Jesuit standards.

For these and other reasons I have no confidence in him and believe he is utterly unfit for the office he holds. Here's something for Mark Thomas. The tenth century Pope John XII was elected at the age of 18 and died aged 27 of a stroke brought on by sexual excess in the bed of a married woman. He was cruel and capricious, and eventually deposed. But no-one, at the time or since, has ever accused him of allowing heresy to flourish.

By all means pour scorn on Francis's critics; insist they are of little importance, and even lie about them (vide supra), but do not bury your head in the sand and dismiss their arguments.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

Pope Francis was trained as a priest in the worst possible time - he is also a product of Peronist Argentina. His shocking endorsement of political issues like Global Warming and Open Borders and yucking it up with Abortion King, Barack Obama, who as a state senator in Illinois voted down legislation to require healthcare providers to treat a baby that survived an abortion, and yucking it up with the Castro's who have killed priests and suppressed the Catholic Faith in Cuba, is beyond the pale. He is totally unworthy of his office and the College of Cardinals should be working to get him to step down if they wish to preserve the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

John Nolan said...

NB. The last papagraph is not directed at ByzRC.

John Nolan said...


I don't think we want two popes in succession abdicating. Actually there is more precedent for deposition than abdication in papal history.

However, the likelihood as that we shall have to endure this papacy until its natural end. But before we say 'quem Deus acceleret' bear in mind that his successor could be even worse. The cardinals are likely to be trawling Asia and Africa and it will be Tagle rather than Ranjith, or Turkson rather than Sarah.

ByzRC said...

John -

Thank you for the correction. You truly are our resident historian.

I also never thought the last paragraph of your earlier comment was directed at me but, thank you for confirming.