Pope Francis: Still A Heretic


The SSPX is publishing a series of articles (five up to now) about Francis’ heresies. A sixth part will follow.

The fifth part deals with the question of Francis’ heresy: is Francis, then, a heretic? The very theologically oriented article first restricts the meaning of the word to the rigidly confined theological boundaries of  “a rejection or contradiction of a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium”, and then proceeds to (unavoidably) conclude that no, in this strict theological sense the Evil Clown is not a heretic, though he is clearly favens haeresim, “promoting heresy.”

Well I had to smile when I finished reading this part (I have not read yet the other four). What the author of the articles is saying is that Pope Francis is a heretic in the popular, commonly understood sense of the word, the one used by 99.99% of the population and their cats. However, the expression favens haeresim is the proper word to be used in the strict theological context. Quite. Of course. Fine with me. 

The fact is that, by God’s grace, the broader Catholic discourse is not confined to the boundaries of theological definitions, and that in common life and common sense language a person who promotes heresy is, ipso facto, a heretic.

I allow myself to say that this is not only a “popular use”, as the editor of the article says, but a beautiful expression of that sensus catholicus  that moves a healthy Catholic conscience to call excrement excrement, irrespective of the many shades of brown and grades of stinkiness a trained theologian may distinguish in the material, and more power to him. If it stinks like shit, has the colour of shit and the consistence of shit, then it is Francis’ Papacy. 

Therefore, it is not only unavoidable, but highly fitting that outside of theology faculties Pope Francis be called, as before, for what he is: a heretic. 

Pray for the end of this pontificate and a true restoration of sane Catholicism. No more Benedicts, no more Francises, no more of this V II nonsense. 

We want that old time religion. It will save you when you die. 







Posted on March 9, 2017, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 26 Comments.

  1. If it stinks like shit, has the colour of shit and the consistence of shit, then it is Francis’ Papacy.

    Priceless! I laughed out loud.

  2. “The SSPX is publishing a series of articles (five up to now) about Francis’ heresies.”

    Are you suggesting that the SSPX articles are going to tell us that Francis is not really a heretic in a formal sense. Is this what they are exchanging for accepting his invitation to become a personal prelature?

    • Yes.
      It seems to me that the SSPX considers him a heretic in the common parlance, and certainly a material heretic, but not a formal heretic.

  3. The novus ordo religion needs to be felled to the floor and have a Catholic knee shatter its left cheekbone. That means if the bloody resignation is valid, they can damn well demonstrate the validity explicitly, with precise theological and canonical foundations, or they can (ahead of schedule) GO. TO. HELL.

    by gladstone2

  4. Yes ‘faevens haeresim = promotes heresy. Why is there even a discussion? It seems quite obvious that one who promotes heresy IS a heretic!

    We are being told , in accordance with the above modernistic twist of words, that it is okay to swallow the poison of error.

    And die a spiritual death. How merciful is this?

    False Prophet here.

    • I would not say that the SSPX is trying to minimise or downplay heresy.

      The discussion is merely theological, and by the way it fully confirms that Francis is a heretic in the sense employed by pretty much everyone.

      It really agrees with everything we say about Francis.

    • Absolutely. Too bad he is still ‘free’ to assail our minds.

    • @marysong
      No, a promoter of heresy is not necessarily a heretic. Obviously, it is possible to promote something without personally engaging in it. Cameron is a promoter of homosexuality, but he is (as far as we know) not a homosexual himself.

    • This may be true for homosexuality, but not for heresy.
      In the case of heresy, the promotion in itself signifies approval, and the approval in itself signifies adherence.
      A promoter of Communism is, ipso facto, a Communist.

    • “This may be true for homosexuality, but not for heresy.”
      It is true for heresy as well. Examples: Pope Benedict favored heresy by naming the known heretic Müller (denier of Transsubstantiation) to lead the CDF or by attending Assisi III. Vatican II favors/leads to heresy, as does the Novus Ordo, but both are not heretical in the strict theological sense themselves. As we see, it is possible to promote and favor heresy in many ways without believing in it or even while opposing it explicitly.

      The opposite (promoting Truth while being a heretic) is possible as well. Good examples would be many of the works of C.S. Lewis.

    • You are enlarging the definition of promoting heresy to the point that you don’t even consider heretical the one who promotes it. It’s a contradiction in terms.

      Benedict certainly did not want to promote heresy by appointing Mueller. Inasmuch as he did, he was certainly being heretical.

    • Really? Are you really saying that it is “a contradiction in terms” not to call the “promoter of heresy”, a “heretic”? But that is exactly what the SSPX article does. They call Francis a promoter of heresy, but explicitly deny that this makes him a heretic. I tried to give the SSPX article the benefit of doubt by assuming a legitimate distinction between “promotion” and “commission” of heresy, granting that certain types of “promotion” could occur without “commission”, but if you deny that distinction entirely… well this is great. I would much rather abandon it, then, and simply call all who promote heresy, “heretics”. Which is what has always been done throughout Church History anyway. Not by know-nothing peasants, but by actual theologians far greater than those alive today.

      By this admission, however, the SSPX article is shown to be, not to put too fine a point on it, utter B.S. A conclusion in search of an argument, as I said in another comment.

    • Catocon, you must do two things:
      1) read what I say.
      2) write shorter comments (I just killed another one).

      You are sailing very close to the wind.

      There will be no further warnings.

  5. If SSPX is doing this kind of parsing, then a normalization agreement must be pretty close. If this is what SSPX will become after normalization, then my suspicions (and, I assume, yours, M) will be proven correct: Francis’ attempts to normalize SSPX is nothing but an attempt to co-opt and neuter likely opposition.

    • I think you are too suspicious. This article could have been written exactly in the same way 100 years ago. Again, it agrees with everything we say about Francis.

    • “Francis’ attempts to normalize SSPX is nothing but an attempt to co-opt and neuter likely opposition.”


  6. Ah, you’re a poor man’s Shakespeare, and a wordsmith to be sure.
    I heartily agree with your conclusions, and wish that many people would just call the shit, shit. But in order to keep the position, the digs, the career, the travel, the comforts, the money, the whatever, one must not call shit, shit, One must talk around it, describe it, coddle it, enable it, excuse it, and so on. Only the people can call shit, shit. And we certainly know it and see it and sense it! Now we can’t force the powers that be to properly identify that stuff. Only God can, and this is what we must pray for.

  7. The pope may be “an evil clown” but he is not a stupid clown. He, and his allies, know that if he were to say “things” that fit the technical definition, theologically speaking, of heresy that his pontificate comes to an end. Thus, he and his friends cruise oh so close to that line making sure they never cross it. They don’t change dogma, doctrines or teachings; they just don’t practice it. It’s not what they say, it’s what they do. You know, pastoral.

    • I don;t think he is smart. Actually, I think he is pretty limited in the head department. However, i agree with you that he is not so stupid that he would fall into formal heresy. It would also require balls he will never have.

  8. No. Francis is actually a heretic. He does more than just “promoting” or “favoring” heresy. He “teaches” it. Someone who teaches heresy is a heretic. A heresy is a teaching that contradicts infallible magisterium – Francis does it every day.

    You write: “The fact is that, by God’s grace, the broader Catholic discourse is not confined to the boundaries of theological definitions”

    If Catholic discourse did follow boundaries of theological definitions, every Catholic would see that Francis is indeed a heretic in the strictly theological sense, not just in some imprecise (and therefore utterly useless) “popular usage”. In fact, well-formed Catholics “popularly” call Bergoglio a dirty heretic, because they know what “heresy” means, and they smell and see the dirt.

    He is an actual heretic. The formal/material distinction is an open question, because we do not know for sure whether he actually knows that his teaching is heretical – it is thinkable that he was never told, as “liberals”, “conservatives” and (increasingly) SSPX alike have utterly failed to state the obvious, instead preferring to wallow in equivocation, confusion, collusion with heretics, and shiny Roman Headquarters, thereby enabling further destruction in the Church.

    It does not matter whether one abuses theology and logic in order to exonerate heretics like Francis or in order to excuse adulterers or homosexuals blaspheming the Eucharist. Equivocal redefinition of theological terms (such as “heresy”) in order to include or exclude certain things one wishes to excuse for ideological or opportunistic reasons: That is the very essence of neo-modernism, of which this whole business of strenouously avoiding to call the heretic “heretical” stinks disgustingly.

    • You may want to read the SSPX article again. It is well argued and it starts from a logical premise. The premise is, however, very restrictive.

    • I do not deny that its conclusions follow from the premises. From false premises anything can be proved without logical error. The moon consists of green cheese. Green cheese is delicious. Therefore, moon rocks are delicious. Flawless logic.

      As is typical of neo-modernist thinking, the problem is the fact that terms are subtly redefined in order to serve the pre-determined conclusion. The SSPX cannot, must not call Francis a heretic, because you do not bow to heretics and you do not “reconcile” with them. You ask them to recant and, if they choose to persist, you fight them. Did Athanasius “reconcile” with the Arians? Doctrine must always come first. If Francis were a heretic, that would make the SSPX leadership Traitors to the Catholic Faith for selling out to him in order to live comfortably in nice Roman Headquarters. So he must not be a heretic. “Weil, so schließt er messerscharf, nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf.”

      So let us abuse language, history and logic in order to construct an absurdly narrow definition of “heresy”. Let us then find some technicality upon which to base the equally ludicrous claim that the blatant heretic Jorge Bergoglio somehow fails to satisfy the definition of heresy, even though there is hardly a clearer case in all of Church History. Let us then call those willing to face the truth incompetent by imputing to them a mere popular usage devoid of theological precision which, correctly, must be excluded from rigorous theological reasoning.

      The entire text is a pre-determined conclusion in search of an argument.

    • Your premise it false itself. It assumes that the SSPX article starts from a false premise. This is not the case. Also, once the article states exactly what we all say (that Francis is a heretic in the common parlance) I really do not understand where your beef is.

  9. Louie Verrecchio: SSPX offers stunning evaluation of Amoris, Francis


    • Great article. This is exactly what the SSPX *should* say, and certainly what Archbishop Lefebvre *would* have said.

%d bloggers like this: