The Quibbling About Heresy And The Decadence Of Sensus Catholicus
I would like to say two words about the controversy raised by a Mr Akin’s answer to the letter, mentioned here many times, inviting the Bishops to declare Pope Francis a heretic and depose him, unless he recants from his many heresies.
The point that Mr Akin makes is that Pope Francis cannot really be called heretical, because the tenets of the faith he so manifestly denies are (merely!) infallible doctrines as opposed to dogmatic truths. AKA Catholic does, as always, an excellent and very charitable work of dissection of this point.
My point is, building on his reflection, a different one.
No other generation of Catholics (at least before V II) would have even dreamed of having such discussions when deciding what the appropriate course of action is. Nor would they have cared of what this or that canonical text says. They weren’t blind. Therefore, they could look at reality when reality was staring them in the face.
When Pope Marcellinus sacrificed on the altar of Roman gods, they did not wonder what canon law states should exactly happen in that exact case. They did not quibble about the fact that Marcellinus had not denied any formal dogma, “merely” contravened a commandment. They did not try to walk around, above, below and through reality trying to find a way allowing them not to call reality for what it is.
They had faith. They acted on it.
I have stated many times here, and repeat today, that I do not care a straw for the technical, canonical law definition of what a heresy is, because this is not what my salvation depends upon. Heretic is who heretic does, and in the common parlance and common sense (and in reality, which is so much broader than the quibbles of theologians) Francis is a heretic, because he goes head on against the truths of the Church.
On this, I think we all agree, Mr Akin included. It follows that the letter to the Bishops makes perfect sense, because it is a perfectly realistic reaction to a reality plainly in front of us.
The absurdity of the legalistic denial that Francis a heretic is easily demonstrated. Let us imagine that Francis would promulgate a modification of the canonical rules on heresy, stating that a Pope can only be proclaimed a formal heretic if he solemnly proclaims his heresy dressed in a Muslim garb, on a Friday, from the top of a Minaret, at least 100 feet high. Let us, further, imagine that Francis would proclaim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, and he did so solemnly, dressed in a Muslim garb, from a Minaret, 90 feet high. Would then Mr Akin, and all the other FrancisQuibblers, say that Francis is, therefore, not a heretic according to this or any other definition?
Reality comes first. A heretical Pope is staring you in the face, with a middle finger raised against you. If you don’t see this you are part of the problem.
The first duty of the bishops is towards Christ and His Church. Even if the instruments of canon law did not allow (which AKA Catholic shows not to be the case) to act in case of manifest heresy, the obligation to act would exist anyway. The Church has always acted according to the principle that where the legal instruments at the disposal of the clergy are not sufficient to do what is necessary to do for the good of the Church, ecclesia supplet, as we have seen in the case of the SSPX or, more to the point, in the case of Marcellinus.
That such discussions take place in the first place is a grave indication of the degradation of the sensus catholicus all over the West.
We will be remembered as the people who allowed a clearly heretical Pope to be manifestly heretic day in and day out, for years, whilst discussing his intentions, his translators, his moods, the atmospheric conditions inside aeroplanes, the cultural differences with Argentina, his grasp of English, Italian, Latin, and Spanish, and his digestion.
Open your eyes, for heaven’s sake.
A heretical Pope is staring at you, his face full of hate for us and the Church, with his middle finger raised against you.
This is no time for quibbling.
Share this:
Posted on May 8, 2019, in Bad Shepherds, Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
What you must remember about Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, Patrick Madrid and other Catholic “apologists” is that they’re in the hip pockets of the Catholic Establishment (i.e., the hierarchy). So are journals like “First Things.” They cannot go against the Establishment because, if they do, they’re cut off from speaking engagements and book contracts.
Thanks for the clarity Mundabor. The Bishops failure to act against the obvious heresies of Pope (?) Francis and hide behind ridiculous pettifogging just adds more scandal to the already woeful present state of the Church.
What we have here is clearly a loss courage by the Bishops and others who hide behind technicalities and murky language as self absolution.
Just imagine what God will say to these traitors on judgement day.
I’m heartbroken over Fathers Weinandy and Harrison. Good men going squishy.
Bravo…a clear example of unambiguous writing for prelates to follow. Nuanced..no…accurate..without a doubt. Thank you.
It seems to me that those in the Church have gone the same way as those in the world. Christians and people of good will sat back too long and let the enemy take hold of power by using the law against them. Now the good men in the Church allow their hands to be tied in a similar way by law.
Thank you for this. I have said many times after Bergolio was elected and showing his Catholic-hating colors it is an even worse scandal that no clerics will take him on to the face. That is the model that was left by St. Paul, and none of these men, save Vigano perhaps, has done it. We could tolerate a heretic pope, but only if that heresy was addressed immediately and the faith and tradition defended. It has not been. I pity the men who should have and have not, truly I do! It begs the question, do these men have any supernatural faith at all? They clearly do not fear God. But we have our own problems, how to endure as a Catholic and get through this world on our own.
I maintain the first time he refused to genuflect or kneel before Our Lord, was the time we should have all been up in arms. There is no defense for that arrogant treatment of Christ, certainly not after he kneeled to kiss the feet of Muslims. But if the bishops and cardinals are in agreement with him, it is not on us to solve this, that’s impossible. All we can do is refuse to participate, pray, and make them as miserable as we can as often as we can. But we can’t solve this.
For our part, we do not need Jimmy Akin or any other talking head or even canon lawyer or such to tell us what we have known for a few years now, the man hates Catholicism, faithful Catholics, tradition, the faith itself, and surely, Jesus Christ. He hates Christendom, and he hates the West. He does the bidding of the men who want to see it go down under Islam, and let Islam take over. He helped. How Catholics of any stripe cannot see this and refuse to support this church-off-the-rails is incomprehensible. It does illuminate how we are in bad shape ourselves.
There is one unpardonable sin. The Pharisees saw Christ’s miracles but would not give credence to the testimony of their own eyes prompting Our Lord to tell them (and us) that all sins against the Son of Man would be forgiven but that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that “light that enlightens all men” would not be forgiven. Ever. Unless the person decides to believe his eyes.
If we believe our own God-given senses then Francis is obviously a heretic . As you say: “Open your eyes, for heaven’s sake.” People who pretend to not see this commit that unpardonable sin.
I’m so happy that you included ‘cultural differences’ and ‘digestive problems’. I think if I have a quiet moment at work tomorrow I will try to think up some other very good justifications to keep so many from seeing what is staring straight at them, as you say. Not that it will help them with the next life, but the lecture circuit and book contracts (see Joseph D’H’s comment above) are nearly heavenly, right?