Editor’s Note: Here Dr. Feser gaslights the faithful once again, by saying, since the Church never taught that a pope is always infallible, he can be a manifest, pertinacious heretic. — This illation (logical argument) is obviously dishonest, since infallibility regards the exercise of the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, but heresy is always a personal sin or crime.
I share this video, to make it clear why someone who insists on social conservatism (GOP) also does not want Catholics to ask the Church to haul Pope Francis to a Provincial Council. — And yes, that is Matt Frad, even though he has gone from appearing to be an English academic to an Argentine Gaucho (Cowboy).
As for Dr. Feser implying that “If Christ tolerates this, so should we”, his implicit argument is the utter blasphemy and quite contrary to the entire teaching of Our Divine Master, as practiced by the Apostles, who severely punished and expelled malefactors from office and from the Church.
Dr. Feser also says, blasphemously, “The Pope is the most important man on Earth”. But in the Catholic Faith, the most important Man on Earth is Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament, Who is true God and true Man, always.
Andrea Cionci, the journalist and opera singer, ably refuted Feser’s attempt to keep Catholics from thinking about the anomalies in Pope Benedict’s Renunciation, here.
Dr. Feser is considered one of the more famous and noted philosophers of the United States, which is not saying a lot about the state of intellectual integrity in America.
I won’t continue to list his errors, as his talk on the Papacy is an Operation Gaslight Express. — Dr. Feser confesses to being a re-convert to the Catholic Faith. He is another example of someone who did not learn his catechism correctly when he converted.
I dare to share a mere thought on infallibility, heresy, etc. I call it the principle of the pistol that shoots both ways.
If a Pope commits i.e. heresy, the very thought that precedes the heinous act has caused the end of his papal authority. (cf. Matthew 5:27-28) When he commits the heinous act he is no longer Pope and his infallibility is no more.
The pistol shoots both ways:
—if a Pope acts ex cathedra in the prescribed matters, he is infallible
—if a Pope commits heresy, the very heretical act has effectively ended his papacy and the rights inherent to it. He is no longer Pope and has lost his infallibility by grievously sinning against God’s will.
I honestly ask if my thinking is correct.
There are 5 kinds of heresy
1) In a verbal statement, written or uttered
2) In the assent of the intellect
3) In the consent of the will
4) In an exterior act of agreement
5) In a persistent adhesion of mind and will after being rebuked
You are correct about the 5th kind of heresy. When a pope commits the 2nd kind or 3rd kind only, nobody but God knows it, and he remains pope. When he commits it in the 4th kind, he must be publicly denounced and the Church can remove him at a Provincial Council for the reasons I state in the Sutri Initiative, because there he is rebuked and if he commit the 5th kind, by refusing to retract his previous 4th kinds, he loses his office ipso facto latae sententiae in virtue of canon 1364 of the 1983 code (not modified)
Thank you. That’s very clear!
Wait, am I understanding this correctly – that Matt Fradd endorsed Harris?
And Feser is British? I thought he was American and a professor at some American school.
He is an American, you are correct. I misidentified him. No, Frad did not endorse Harris, Nor did Feser. But Feser’s position was considered by many Catholics as ambiguous, regarding whom to vote for.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2024/08/trump-has-put-social-conservatives-in.html
“The argument for voting for Trump is that Harris and the Democrats would do far more damage to the country, not least in the respects social conservatives most care about. The argument for sitting the election out is that the GOP must be punished – either by losing or by only narrowly winning – for moving in a socially liberal direction, since its doing so will do enormous damage to the country in the long run unless the loss of votes convinces the party to reverse course.
These are in my opinion both powerful arguments.”
I have corrected my comments above accordingly. Thank you for pointing out my errors.