I'm a recent convert (from Protestantism) and trying to understand this whole debate. One reason for my conversion was reading the Church Fathers and being convinced of the magisterium as the upholder of the true faith. The fact that a magisterium is even needed points to the fact that there will be heresies and questionable teachings even within the Church, but with the safeguard of Scripture and Tradition (directed by God through the vessel of the magisterium) to protect the one true faith. Jesus Himself taught that there will be wolves in sheep's clothing and we need look no further that Judas the Betrayer for a prime example of that. Surely if someone who literally walked, talked, ate, and drank daily with our Lord can commit such sin, should we be surprised that over the course of 2,000 years there have been others who have followed in Judas' footsteps? That said, the current crisis in the Church, including, but not limited to certain teachings and sayings from Pope Francis, was a major roadblock to my conversion for a period of time. However, at the end of the day, if I truly believe that the Catholic Church is the way in which God has chosen to hand down true faith throughout the centuries despite other forms of corruption in office holders within that long history, then I must also have faith that God will uphold His Church in the midst of what seems to be a very real problem in our times. Hindsight is always 20/20, but at the moment I can only see dimly through a mirror, knowing only in part that which I will one day see clearly and fully know. What I am certain of, however, is that though all be unfaithful, Christ is faithful. With that in mind, I do have three questions that I would invite discussion on because they are things I do not understand: 1.) What makes sedevacantivism different from the Protestant denial of apostolic succession? Also, where does that leave the Church if there is no continual apostolic succession? 2.) It is my understanding that Pope Francis has rejected the title of 'The Vicar of Christ'. If this is so, has he not de facto declared himself to not be the pope? In rejecting the title, has he not also rejected the responsibilities? 3.) As a simple layperson trying to live out the faith, how does/should this question of whether or not a pope can be a heretic really affect my calling to live faithfully? I write this whilst living in the midst of one of the most liberal (schismatic??) Catholic countries - Austria - and yet there are still pockets of faithful Catholic priests and monasteries which have not been affected by certain modern heresies. If the Catholic Church truly is all that we profess it to be, is there a valid reason for us, as laypersons, to concern ourselves with such issues that are the responsibilities of others within the church? Shouldn't our first duty be to fast and pray for godly men to lead our Church in a way that would glorify Christ? To live virtuous lives ourselves and instill those virtues in the hearts and minds of future generations? I know this is a long post, but these are honest questions and I would greatly appreciate hearing from others or even Fr. Pine. God bless!

Thank you! Like you said, giving us the tools to think for ourselves. “The Church will not fail” made me tear up in hope. I didn’t know I feared anything else until You reminded us of Christ’s promise. There are foundational beliefs in our faith which ring so true somewhere deep inside me, it almost doesn’t feel like me responding to it; it feels like a more divine nature which forgot how important they are to my whole being until I wake up to it in a fully conscious manner. Simply beautiful. Thank you again.

I always enjoy your “level headed” approach to these challenging questions. Thank you, Fr Pine! Our Mother Church WILL survive and thrive as long as we, the faithful, live by her teachings- inerrant Scripture and Tradition.

Clear as mud.

I wish he would have said 'Yes' or 'No', then explained why. He spoke 18 minutes and I still don't know the answer.

Spoiler Alert: His answer to the question is yes, but he never explicitly says it.

I was happily surprised the retreats are in New York! I will tell my siblings here in nyc

Thank you Father

Father Pine, I have the impression that your overall point is to trust the indefectibility of the Church and don't worry about whether a Pope can be a heretic. That would be sound advice prior to Pope Francis, but with Pope Francis there is a real concern among many Catholics that he holds heretical views and so the question of whether a Pope can be a heretic has become more pressing. You danced around the question but in my opinion never really answered it. My two cents and the kind of answer that I think people are looking for is that the Pope cannot be a formal heretic but he could be a material heretic.

The Dubia and formal corrections of the Dubia by the Cardinals in recent years is an example of what Fr. PINE just said

I am a recent convert and I have been looking for an answer to this question, the one you seemed to forget to answer. There are very pressing theories why Pope Francis is the way he is that fit very well and are concerning, theories that many Catholics don't know about. Despite thinking it may be possible he is a heretic, I still hold the belief the RCC cannot and will not fail. It seems very obvious to me Pope Francis speaks contrary to Church dogmas... Does that not make him a heretic? What do we do when the Pope is publicly teaching everyone false teachings? Do we stand up to him, or let him lead people astray? Obviously we pray, but aside from that, what else?

Thank you for sharing 🙏🏻

Consequently, on 20 October 1870, one month after the newly founded Kingdom of Italy had occupied Rome, Pope Pius IX, who then considered himself a prisoner in the Vatican, issued the bull Postquam Dei munere, adjourning the council indefinitely. While some proposed to continue the council in the Belgian city of Mechlin, it was never reconvened. The council was formally closed in 1960 by Pope John XXIII, prior to the formation of the Second Vatican Council.

When will Fr Gregory be on Reason&Theology my M. Lofton?

If I understood this video correctly, the message is: don't worry about the pope being or not being heretic because the important thing is to know that the Church is in the truth (even if the pope may or may not be in the truth/orthodoxy). Well, I concede that idea is reassuring, but I think the possibility of having a heretic pope, or more specifically, the possibility that Francis is a heretic pope is indeed a major issue that should be clarified, because he is changing the Church and even the Catechism, and next year, after the synod, he will probably bring huge changes in the Church, also in doctrines. What if the pope declares sinful things as correct (I'm sure we all have one of two things in mind, but there might be many more), should we all simply accept it because the Church/pope is always right, or should we beware and reject it because those novelties contradict previous Church beliefs, or should we think that the pope may or may not be right and so decide on our own which new changes brought about by Francis should we accept or reject? Even deciding to use previous Magisterium as the rule for discriminating truth from error is complicated, since that would imply rejecting the present pope and ignoring his new teachings, but that very thing would be heresy or schism according to the very same Magisterium we are using as the golden rule. I do think the Catholic Church is the true Church, but I also think this pope has thrown us all into a really paradoxical situation and we need guidance and explanations, not simply reassurance, because we are not simply talking about general ideas, but also about really practical and individual ones. We don’t have to wait and see if the pope will bring new teachings after the synod, we are already having new teachings that contradict previous Magisterium, it’s only that I fear that will multiply after the synod. If the pope tells me this particular thing is good or permitted and the Church always taught that it is a sin, should I obey the pope or "the Church as it was before this pope", and either way, what is the explanation to do so (reject the pope, admit that the Church was teaching heresy for 2000 years), no explanation I can think of seems good enough, but there should be an explanation. The only way out seems to be to think that the pope is 100% orthodox, but I think nobody can take that seriously (or if you do, read this article and think twice: apologia21.com/2021/12/20/seguira-la-iglesia-siendo-catolica-dentro-de-dos-anos/). Any creative answers anyone?

Thanks Father.

I may have missed it, but you didn't answer the question. Yes the Church cannot fail. But can the Pope be a heretic? Not asking what happens to Him (deposed or not, or whatever).

So, YES the Pope can be a heretic. It is a bit frustrating how many theologians discussing this question won’t give a simple and straightforward answer. The best way to answer would be to say “yes” or “no” and then provide your explanation.

Thank you for the video. Can you explain the difference between formal heresy and material heresy? I'm always confused by the two thank you.

I'm not a native English, but... did anyone else not understand a single word of what he said?

I don't know if this is a place to ask questions, but since heresy has been brought up. Could Fr. Pine talk about the Fr Feeney controversy about the real meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? Whether that statement includes those with Invisible Ignorance or not.

Thank you Fr!

Pope Francis appears to be in over his head. The Church has had weak popes in the past. This is made especially clear by the intellectual brilliance and faithfulness of the previous two popes. Take heart. We have the promise that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church through time. Our job is to pray Francis will restrain his worst impulses.

I’m still confused. It sounds like Father Pine is saying that papal infallibility holds but that an individual pope can indeed be fallible. So then, how do we have papal infallibility?

I remember a part of the bible and the translation I like from Hebrews 4:12: "For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning to the thoughts and intentions of the heart." I don't know how correct this is, nor do I want to lead anyone into error, but I feel the soul of a priest could be so full of sin that he is no longer part of the Church, but that his Spirit is not his, but Christ's in that, that is still within the Church. I like to apply this distinction to the Pope. That is, the Pope, by the grace of infallibility, is not preserved from any form of sin, even the worst kinds, and so, we must not place our trust in him as we would the deposit of Faith? Is it wrong for me to trust the Angelic Doctor more than any current Pope? I, as for myself, feel driven to absolutism, but I'm beginning to realize absolutes can only be applied to the Three Persons of God. Then I remember Hebrews 12:22-24. That seems to be that which IS? Maybe not, but I'm no expert.

Yes and Fr Hess answered this question very well. 36th Pope Liberius (352-66) was a heretic. Heretical Popes is nothing new--which is waaay to under reported and gives a false understanding of Catholic history and theology. Formal and Material heresy need to be distinguished. Formal is a public rejection of an established dogma/doctrine. Material heresy is a given theological error to be true. Francis is a material heretic (as were most of the recent popes). He maybe he is the pope or maybe not, but God is the judge of the pope and not man. Hence seda vactism is heresy because it proclaims (and I admit thier arguments are good) as fact that which is left to God alone to judge.

Sorry Father I live in South Africa, went to St Dominic's Boksburg.

Thank you for this video! Is it okay to ever question canonizations?

You mentioned Lumen Gentium and the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. This has always confused me.. this distinction. It would be a helpful video to discuss this development and why it is consistent with the perennial teaching of the church. At least for me!

It looks like we are going to find out. One way or another.

No matter what a certain priest? does, no matter what scandals hit the church, despite whatever corruption or abuse of power might exist, and despite whatever mistakes the Church has made throughout history, to whom shall we go? for here is the body and blood of Christ given for a sinner as miserable as I. Of all the twelve Apostles, Jesus chose Judas as well to preach the Gospel, and by this we have a spiritual comprehension that not all who minister come from holiness nor may prevail in holiness. No divine promise of a perfect body of church leaders was ever made. From Peter’s thrice denial and taking up the sword, to Paul’s collaboration in murder of the first martyr…all are demonstrative of the fact that in every saint there is a past sinner, and in every sinner the potential for a future saint.😢😁

I’m forever grateful for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Enough of pope's and unite all Christians

I say that Pope Francis fulfills many of those heretical teachings.

Yes, we have at least two cases in the history of confirmed Papal heresies... 1) Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the 5th Ecumenical Council for his support for heretical Three Chapters. After 6 months, Vigilius repented, admitted his errors, aligned himself with the Council, condemned Three Chapters and was brought back into the fold of the Church. IN his own words: "...one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognizes the truth...". 2) Pope Honorius I was excommunicated by the 6th Ecumenical Council alongside the Monothelites: "...and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things" in the XIII session. Citing his written correspondence with Sergius, Honorius was subsequently accused of having confirmed his impious doctrines; the XVI session reaffirmed the condemnation of the heretics explicitly stating "to Honorius, the heretic, anathema!", and concluding with the decree of the XVII session that Honorius had not stopped provoking scandal and error in the Body of the Church; for he had "with unheard of expressions disseminated amidst the faithful people the heresy of the one will", doing so "in agreement with the insane false doctrine of the impious Apollinaire, Severus and Themistius". The Roman legates made no objection to his condemnation. Pope Leo II beside affirming the Council, also confirmed condemnation of his predecessor Pope Honorius: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, AND ALSO HONORIUS, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” The condemnation of Pope Honorius was reiterated by Pope Leo's successors and subsequent councils, and was included in Breviary lessons up until the eighteenth century. Due to rising heresy of Papal “infallibility”, it was later put down to be somehow forgotten as it was interfering with the newly promoted lies of the Vatican I council. So much so about the alleged "infallibility" of the Popes and alleged "supremacy" over the Councils.!

So the magisterium on the whole is infallible but the pope is not unless speaking xc on faith and morals? Is that right?

14:30 I have often thought that within the purpose of Pope Francis's papacy is to put the lie to the ultramontinist tendencies amongst those who are opposed to Modernism in the Church. Not that the Modernism should not be opposes, but often those who oppose it end up in the opposite direction. Francis doesn't permit them to to maintain their excessive promotion of the inerancy for the Church is every circumstance regarding every topic..

A Pope cannot be a heretic and a heretic cannot be Pope! Yes we have had bad popes who led immoral lives, but when it comes to heresy - one cannot preach things against the Catholic Church and truly still be the head of it. The Pope is the human representation of Christ on Earth - to say that Francis is Pope while he preaches error would be to say that Christ can also preach error, which is untrue. Look into the documents of Vatican I - before the reforms. If any Pope is to preach heresy let him be anathema!

Talk, talk, talk... and no direct answer Can you please get to point?

What about the great apostasy?

There are different types of Sedevacantists- after all even canon law makes it clear it is possible to unduly elect a pope- the question is - how many times can popes be unduly elected? Well the Cardinals that vote do have free will- Conclusion ; not all types of Sedevacantists are heretical. What cannot happen is for the Majesterium to altogether disappear - but an empty chair for a few unduly elections is possible.

Im so disapointed, I thought that it can topple down sedevacantism arguments but still he short of catholic doctrine. He mention about ultramontane he does not know that it refers to Catholic faithful to the pope sgaints the janssenist. The worse he mention is the pope can teach error in the faith, where did he get that, it is againts the essence of infallibility. But the burning question he did not answer if a pope teaches heresy can he still be pope?

Saint John Chrysostom (c. 347-407). He was, of course, himself a bishop. It seems that this pithy quote is a popularization of the full (attributed) quote, where the saint is talking about the relatively few in number who will be saved and the bad shepherds who are responsible: The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path.🤢

Can we tell our bishops and priests about it? They can’t do anything about it .

Fr. Gregory, sedevacantism has been usually associated with the idea of the "heretical pope." But, when they argue their case, sedevacantists do not typically rely on demonstrating that "the pope is a heretic". Such a claim brings with it all the complexities discussed in your video. No; as it turns out, sedevacantism is typically established on other, much simpler grounds. Consider the question of papal authority. It is always safe to follow the pope when he teaches the whole Church or promulgates law to the whole Church. Why can we say that? Because in such situations the Church demands assent of intellect and will from the faithful. The Church would not demand that if the magisterium of the popes could contain pernicious error that poisons souls. That's what the popes themselves and the doctors and the approved theologians have explained again and again. And, of course, it makes all the sense sense! If it were not so, we would always have to "sift" through a pope's magisterium to distinguish teachings to which we give our assent and teachings that we boldly "resist." Therefore, even if a teaching of a pope to the Church isn't situated within the "infallible" category in the pyramid structure you describe, it is still safe to follow it, and that's why the Church demands assent. It is not a question of whether the pope is a heretic. It is also not a question of whether the pope can make a technical mistake in the course of his ordinary teaching. It is instead a question of whether a pope can include pernicious teachings or laws in the exercise of his office to the Church. That is simply not possible, or Catholicism loses all meaning. As St. Bellarmine explains: "The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err. Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men. On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off." (De Romano Pontifice IV.3) Sedevacantists thus say that Francis simply cannot be the pope. Why? Because if we merely apply known Catholic truths to the empirical case in point, we arrive at the conclusion that Francis' teaching often runs against the Catholic faith. We could give hundreds of examples, but one will suffice. Francis has repeated numerous times, most notably in his encyclical Fratelli Tutti, that we should focus our efforts on pursuing a global fraternity by not insisting on the religious differences that separate us. Nevetheless, it is a known Catholic truth that a Catholic is forbidden to do so! It is the old error of indifferentism that was condemned by several popes. St. Pius X even adds that promoting a world fraternity leaving aside the Catholic gospel is an impossible task and a social disaster! (cf. Notre Charge Apostolique) Yet this very idea is at the core of the teaching of Francis, and he has repeated it many, many times. Sedevacantists, therefore, explain that the only viable solution to this conundrum is that Francis is not the pope. Of course that raises many follow-up questions, but the answer to them can be easily found if the person is willing to pursue it. A little research goes a long way. The "mystery of wickedness" that for centuries we have been warned about is finally here. Going back to the original point: this is not a matter of whether Francis is a heretic. The question is: is it spiritually safe to follow Francis? The Church teaches it is always safe to follow the ordinary teachings of the popes when they speak to the whole Church.

The King is naked !!!

Okay is he saying it's possible or not....

15:53 How if the capacity of the Church Herself is embodied precisely in the sequence of action known in the first step as sedevacantism and in the second step as conclavism?

Jesus is head of the Catholic Church not the Pope. (@08.00), The Pope is meant to be his Earthly representative. However the current Pope has declined the Vicar of Christ title. He has referred to himself as Bishop of Rome. I can only think that God allows this current Pope who has appeared to make statements or allow practice contrary to the Faith to still be in this position for a higher reason than we can possibly know. Pope J2 had worship where Pagan ritual took place. Though he spoke out about Abortion. Jesus said his Church will prevail against the gates of Hell. So we must trust in his Word.

Wouldn't refusing to answer the Dubia constitute "obstinancy"?

Clearly Fr. Pine was nervous for this video. That is understandable, but fear is clouding Catholic judgment on this topic. In order to meaningfully talk about some possibility, the possibility itself must first be defined. When possibilities are not defined, vacuous assertions are made and intellectual dishonesty runs rampant. That is what is occurring here. If someone is going to make claims about the state of affairs where the Church defects, the Pope commits formal heresy, or the Pope is deposed, they would have to first actually define these possible states of affairs. This is not happening, and the consequence is a gag order on rational discussion and accountability, as well as an insistence on blind faith. Tyrannical rulers and institutions flourish precisely when questioning them or even considering the possibility that they have erred is not permitted. For example, Fr. Pine wishes to assert that "the Church is indefectible." The problem is that he has no coherent or even explicit definition of what it would mean for the Church to defect, and therefore his statement is vacuous and meaningless. His statement is analytic rather than synthetic, despite the fact that the common notion of ecclesia does not involve indefectibility (which means that we have an instance of "begging the question"). Put differently, if we don't know what it would mean for the Church to defect, then we also don't know what it would mean for the Church to not defect, or to be "indefectible." I submit that fear explains why such a rational man is committing such basic philosophical mistakes.

Please get to the point!

Give specific details about some heretical things Pope Francis has said. You need to clarify because young people who are living immoral lives and going to communion without going to confession are liking what our pope is saying.

If the pope is the ‘head’ of the church, then, what is Christ to it’s body? God bless in Jesus name, amén, amén, aleluya!

16:33 Yeah, exactly. 1994 was not exactly consistent with 1633 judgement on Galileo. Who - except sedes and conclavists, laity and clergy - have raised any voice against the abusive conflation of Fundamentalism with Protestantism and at the same time rejection of some Fundamentalist truth (like inerrancy of Biblical history or even cosmology)?

Funny I don't recall these conversions about previous popes we always prayed for our vicar Our Father in Rome

If excommunication is a disciplinary action, wouldn't it be either a bit of a non-issue about whether the Pope is disciplined, and also wouldn't it be a little unfitting for him to be disciplined at all, being the head of the church (potentially, idk)

I think we have to understand one thing when the pope speaks in error it’s not like the days of old where hardly anybody knew what was said or being said it took a long while and things could’ve been corrected before the public found out but now as soon as the pope speaks in error the whole world knows in a matter of seconds and those that are not really grounded in their faith follow him into error which could mean the loss of their souls this is not a good thing that is why good cardinals and bishops need to speak up for the salvation of souls which could very well be lost through that error that is being spread like wildfire through social media television and other forms! I know the gates of hell shall never prevail against it but in the meantime many souls may end up there because of the error in teaching

Meanwhile concussion works it’s way through

I realise that this is more of an internal matter for Catholics, and I comment as an outsider... however it’s pertinent to comment on the number of times that Christ had to correct and rebuke his chosen Apostles, just as God worked with and through anointed Kings of Israel. One of the aspects of Christianity that I find inescapable, is our personal responsibility to God for our words and actions. The sins of which we are to repent includes sins of omission and ignorance . If we are responsible for what we do and know, then we cannot use the Nuremberg defence, that we are just obeying authority. From this viewpoint, it becomes very difficult to justify granting someone the authority to speak “in the place of Christ”. The teachings of scholars, theologians and priests may be useful as guidance, but I see nothing absolving me of my responsibility to know the scriptures and follow my conscience.

"How do you make sense of what seems to be erroneous..." I would like to add, how do you make sense of the spectacularly immoral behaviour of some of the "vicars of Christ" during the Middle Ages? Some of these guys were absolutely, incredibly immoral and perverse. How do you make sense of that? I would encourage any intelligent Roman Catholic to study the history of the popes. Especially during the Middle Ages. It's a real eye opener.

Then the church is God's body?

Short answer yes, but then he technically wouldn’t be the pope anymore unless he publicly repented.

so was that basically "no" ?

@Pints With Aquinas I'm confused as to how any of this logically leads to your conclusion. Your attempted refutation at 13:50 of the opinions on what happens to heretical popes (particularly St. Bellarmine's position) makes no sense because it is made clear that we're talking about the PUBLIC sin of heresy, so secret sins have nothing to do with the argument... I'm not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely confused as to why secret sins were mentioned at all. St. Bellarmine stated the 5 possible opinions that could be taken on this matter, and he himself explained why it was absurd to propose that a pope could not be a secret heretic. I don't know who makes the argument based on the delict of heresy because it's moot since the Pope is above canon law. St. Bellarmine demonstrates why a Pope upon pertinaciously (and publicly) teaching heresy (as a private theologian) ipso facto loses all claim to office, jurisdiction, etc. and none of his reasons were refuted at all. I hope none of this is taken as aggressive, since it's not my intention. God bless.

When I see the Pope asking forgiveness for trying to uplift people and teach them about Truth and salvation, and succumbing to the heresy of religious pluralism by publicly participating in pagan ceremonies ... at that moment I know the Pope is no longer a legitimate leader of the Church. We have had Schism for lesser offenses. Our dear humble Benedict is a better Vicar of Christ. Why did we ever let him step down?

Yup, Gal 2:11 Peter was to be blamed

Hi, I ordered your book, though it still hasn’t shipped. Is it technically not out yet?

I trust in God that He will deal with the Pope. I think it’s important to know the immovable fundamentals of the Faith and not deviate from those, and as long as you do that and retain the honor due to the office of the Papacy you can rest confidently in God’s grace. Our current Pontiff has given me trouble and anxiety at times but frankly I’m not Catholic because of him, I’m Catholic because Jesus brought me to conversion. If my conversion had rested on the witness of Pope Francis then I would have just stayed Protestant. God be praised that Francis’s boss is more convincing than he is.

Does honoring Pachamama make one a formal heretic?

I didn’t understand

First, answer the question, yes or no. Then explain yourself. Your teaching is confusing.

I’ll tell you what happens, an ecumenical council deposes him just like the 5th council did to Vigilius lol

Carry On McDuff ! 😄

Huh? What did you say?? Seems like the burocrats abound.

Pope Francis just happens to not be from the same intellectual tradition as literally all other popes before him. The faithful who have been represented for hundreds of years has suddenly been sidelined and they don't enjoy any alternative perspective. Stop with this schismatic content it breaks my heart

The answer is simple .. even if, in true Thomistic fashion .. it gets a little complicated: Yes, a passing pope could be or become a heretic, in fact. How otherwise - in theory - could he lose his office of 'pope' aka bishop of Rome, Successor to Peter, and Vicar of Christ (in this case, because of his heretical beliefs)? Here, the papacy, being a patriarch, a father in the gospel .. is an office, that is, he is an allotted officer with a specific jurisdiction and some general authority, he is the occupant of a management job with some particular requirements having a universal application = in Christ (the one body with one spirit, as a living corporate union); if, somehow, he fails to do his job well, it is he who fails .. in oversight (episcopacy), it is not Christ's failure (at One with His Bride, the Church, no Other). Our problem is not may a pope be defective, as a managerial officer, a bishop, but - in his own defective way - may he then go on to teach error as if the truth of the Faith, with Christ's authority, and his own jurisdictional power, thus as something binding in faith; the answer is, of course: No. Or at least .. not officially; for if a pope's personal defects (in word, thought, or deed) lead him to defect from the Faith, and to teach this defective opinion as now a matter of the Faith (according to him, and his courtly sycophants), he has defected from the Office allotted to him (for the defined job description, Pope at Rome, is a decidedly narrow one, though moot in actual case history). Papa Bergoglio, for instance, like many of his recent predecessors may have toyed with notions that were (once) considered heresy or at least heretical (in tone), in true Modernist fashion this is always done obtusely (itself marked as a heretical trait); but to date, in true Jesuit style, he has not made his oddest opinions matters of faith, only matters that alter how we are expected to understand the Faith or apply it (to fit current trends*, et al); this is not (quite) heresy, so the reigning Sovereign Pontiff is still in the ruling office of Supreme Pontiff, while his oddities in the management of his cure are politically puzzling they are not (yet) matters of the saving faith .. still and all, while not being particularly good at a job does not automatically remove one from holding that office, if that office is one of monarchy then that defect is a cause of greater concern and even of danger in itself, ranging from widespread confusion to outright tyranny, to political dictatorship, to petty autocracy .. or all in one unchallengeable stream-of-consciousness megalomania. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o) * In sexuality, environmental stewardship, the nature of marriage, sacramental penitence without purposeful amendment, submitting to dubious, unnecessary and ineffective but state-mandated medical treatments ... extraordinarily ordinary stuff like that.

I believe that Jesus didn't die only to give a spectacle to the World, He died for us, anyone who tries to lighten the TRUTH OF CHRIST'S sacrifice to save souls is being a little materialist when says that "atheists go heaven". I do not believe that such comment will change God's intention and will about needs to be done to be saved.

The Church has never had a pope like Francis in 2,000 years!!!!!!

This brother is explaining us that a pope can be a heretic, but it does not matter, because it is ‘the Church’ which is ‘allways right’. Thank you, brother, for this novel insight. Only please, can you explain - why Jesus wanted to build his Church on Peter/Rock? That would not make sense, yes?

Absolutely! He is just a man!

The Pope and Kenneth Copeland !! The Pope and Tony Palmer ! The Pope and Pachamama ! Papal discernment…discuss.

17:18 Are you calling sedevacantism an _in itself heretical_ judgement? When I call 1994 heretical or even apostatic, I have Trent Session IV to fall back on. When you call sedevacantism "in itself heretical" as a judgement, what do you fall back on? What document? When was it condemned? At least by the time I became conclavist, there were bishops who were sedes - in case you intended to refer to Leo XII and his judgement on La Petite Église (which had claimed and still claims Popes from Pius VII on are invalid). Sedes have gone the opposite curve from LPE. They lost the support of bishops and we gained it. So, you cannot call the judgement heretical because it "leads to a communion without bishops" because that is not what it does. Any more at least.

Fr Gregory Hesse explains it simpler and easier. But thanks father for the effort.

Sounds like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place here. You have to uphold your interpretation of the gates of hell not prevailing against the successors of Peter, but you can't condone heresy, or blasphemy, either.

I certainly doubt *this* pope but pray for him daily bc duty + who am I? Still...one can hope for the future *AHEM* cardinalburke...

The way I see is if it’s possible the Pope can be a heretic, then Papal infallibility is at best a very mysterious doctrine that seems to apply not just to the pope but to any man or woman Christ chooses to be a doctor for the church.

Gal 2"11 St. Paul rebked St. Peter because he was to be blamed.

Where in scripture or recorded history was Peter ever in Rome.has the scripture any place in your teaching or only the Roman rule book

answer, yes, socialism was condemned long ago by the RC, quite rightly too. The current pope is clearly a socialist.

No, the Pope cannot be a heretic, thus a bishop that preaches heresy is not the Pope. Its not hard to understand....

14:10 How come sedevacantism is treated as a heresy, when it is not condemned as such? Conciliarism is condemned as such.

Is it a sin to tell people to read books by baddies like mutha' T and jpii because my publisher has printed books of theirs that he wants me to sell ? Woof

Pope Honorius was excommunicated for heresy. Therefore, the pope cannot be infallible on matters of faith.

John 22 gets a bad name by Ockham and I'm not so sure he deserves it. That was with regard to "apostolic poverty" and in this case I side with the Pope. For Franciscans to have stuff but not "own" it was a wee disingenuous. I don't know about "the beatific vision," but how can a man be faulted for missing the mark there?

Blah, blah, blah….just save it…there is no way to excuse Francisco’s heresy!!!

There has never been a Pope who was not a heretic. The office itself is inherently heretical because it's a falsehood that Jesus told Peter that he was the rock the church was built on. It's clear in scripture that Jesus was saying that his own status as the Son of God was the rock the church was built on. What the Catholics do is equivocate on two different words in Greek both being translated as rock in order to pretend that Jesus was calling Peter the rock, when the word Jesus used in calling Peter the rock and the word Jesus used in referring to the foundation of the church are two different words. We also know that the Pope was simply one of five patriarchates who declared himself to be in supreme authority when historically it was a first among equals situation, in precisely the same manner the patriarch of Constantinople became the informal first patriarch after the schism. Because of this, every Pope in history has been heretical in his claims to be Christ's sole direct representative on Earth.

Yes. To answer your question. Only God is holy, and Jesus said do not call anyone Father except the Lord above. So, when you call the pope, Holy Father whoever... that is a direct heretic statement. God alone is the Holy Father.

saying your name is Father such and so is terribly awkward

"The church can't fail" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 you guys truly are special