![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/05\/CrossExamination2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s cut to the quick. The bottom-line questions at hand are:<\/p>\n
1) Is Pope Francis a heretic, or demonstrably guilty of espousing or promulgating specific heretical tenets?<\/p>\n
2) On what canonical<\/em> \/ theological basis does one incontrovertibly establish<\/em> this charge?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Even a reactionary signatory to the Easter Letter<\/a> like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (one of 13 out of 19 documented original signatories with strong reactionary leanings<\/a>) will go part of the way in acknowledging that there is an honest, legitimate case to be made against<\/em> the main thrust of the letter. Remember him<\/em>? I just summed up (yesterday<\/a>) some of the opinions he (similar to twelve other signatories) has held, that go far, far beyond merely what Pope Francis<\/em> believes, or allegedly believes, or has done:<\/p>\n
[Vatican II\u00a0itself is a seedbed of] progressivism and modernism [and] John Paul II\u00a0and\u00a0Benedict XVI\u00a0. . .\u00a0were swimming in a lake of Kool-Aid rather than the ocean of Tradition . . . [and]\u00a0were conflicted and inconsistent progressives.<\/p>\n
*<\/p>\n
Bergoglio [Pope Francis] is the distillation of all the worst tendencies in Roncalli [Pope St. John XXIII],\u00a0Montini [Pope St. Paul VI],\u00a0Wojty\u0142a [Pope St. John Paul II], and\u00a0Ratzinger [Pope Benedict XVI] . . .<\/p>\n
*<\/p>\n
[The\u00a0Pauline \/ \u201cNew\u201d \/ ordinary form Mass\u00a0is] so radical a deconstruction and reconstruction of the Roman liturgy that it does not exist in the same tradition of organic development. It is a new departure, a new thing, not a revision of the old thing . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Just a bit of background<\/em> there (sorry for the \u201coff-topic\u201d diversion . . .). So, anyway, as I was saying, even Kwasniewski will concede this<\/em> much<\/a>:<\/p>\n
The authors in the \u201csympathetic critiques\u201d category make some good points worthy of further consideration. . . . their disagreements with the Open Letter have more to do with the nature of the arguments to be made, the forum in which to make them, and the ramifications for future steps.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Okay; I thought it might be worthwhile to briefly survey the statements of these four papal critics that Kwasniewski cites and links to, concerning the pope\u2019s alleged heresies (adding two more to the mix, for good measure).<\/p>\n
Phil Lawler<\/strong> <\/span>(no admirer of this pope at all, as can readily be seen in his article I shall cite), opined:<\/p>\n
I fear that this letter does more harm than good, compounding the problem that loyal Catholics now face.<\/p>\n
Well,\u00a0is<\/i>\u00a0the Pope a heretic? I am not qualified to address that question. As a matter of fact, I don\u2019t know who is. . . .<\/p>\n
To their credit, the authors of the Easter Letter recognize the need for an authoritative statement, for a judgment by the world\u2019s bishops. But if that is their goal, should they not have approached sympathetic bishops privately, quietly, to make their case? Because by taking their arguments to the mass media, they have made it\u00a0less<\/i>\u00a0likely that bishops would support them.<\/p>\n
Peter Kwasniewski, one of the principal authors of the letter,\u00a0now says that the document lists\u00a0<\/a>\u201cinstances of heresy that cannot be denied.\u201d This, I\u2019m afraid, is a demonstrably false statement. The \u201cinstances of heresy\u201d mentioned in the letter\u00a0have<\/i>\u00a0been denied, and repeatedly. The authors of the letter are convinced of their own arguments, but they have not convinced others. In fact they have not convinced me, and if they cannot persuade a sympathetic reader, they are very unlikely to convince a skeptical world. . . .<\/p>\n
It will be easier, now, to classify\u00a0anyone<\/i>\u00a0who challenges the Pope as a member of the same group that is making charges of heresy. Consequently life will be more difficult for those of us who are\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0calling for the deposition of the Roman Pontiff, but simply for a clarification of Church teaching.<\/p>\n
. . .\u00a0the claim that the Pope has committed heresy is at best a leap of logic . . .\u00a0their suggestion that the Pope\u2019s controversial appointments are evidence of\u00a0heresy<\/i>\u00a0is ludicrous. . . .<\/p>\n
But what is it that we want bishops to say? That the Pope is a heretic? I, for one, would be content if bishops made it clear that the Church\u2019s teaching has not changed, will not change, cannot change on fundamental questions such as the inviolability of the marriage bond and sanctity of the Eucharist. (\u201cIs the Pope a heretic? The danger of asking the wrong question\u201d<\/a>, Catholic Culture<\/em>, 5-3-19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap.<\/strong><\/span> (who is not at all averse to strong criticism of Pope Francis) offers an equally skeptical and definite analysis:<\/p>\n
[T]he fact that Pope Francis articulates these positions in an ambiguous manner makes it almost impossible to accuse him rightly of heresy. (This is, in a sense, a saving grace.) Those who interpret his ambiguous teaching in a manner not in keeping with the Catholic faith may be heretical, but the pope is not, even if the pope appears to give silent approval to their erroneous interpretations. Thus, I think that the letter\u2019s authors have gone beyond what is objectively warranted. . . .\u00a0the manner in which they were presented, the conclusions drawn, and the actions proposed will not help rectify the present crisis within the Church.<\/p>\n
. . .\u00a0because the open letter is extreme in its appraisal and intemperate in its approach, more than likely it will make it more difficult for bishops, and even cardinals, to address present concerns. While they may be displeased, and even annoyed, with Pope Francis\u2019s ambiguity and the manner in which he conducts his Petrine ministry, yet they rightly are nowhere near judging Francis a heretic and will remain silent about the letter.<\/p>\n
. . . the open letter throws this work of the Spirit into jeopardy, for now those who have undertaken this battle will more easily be tarred with the brush of extremism. (\u201cIs Pope Francis a Heretic?\u201d<\/a>, First Things<\/em>, 5-7-19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Joseph Shaw<\/strong><\/span> is the third \u201csympathetic\u201d critic that Kwasniewski mentions. Somehow (I can\u2019t resist noting), he is qualified to critique the pope\u2019s theology and bandy about the most fine-tuned questions of possible heresy, even though he is a mere philosopher<\/em>. Ed Feser (see below) is a philosopher as well, as is Peter Kwasniewski himself; and Phil Lawler is a journalist, who majored in Government<\/a> and did graduate work in political philosophy.<\/p>\n
But they are free and qualified (so they blithely assume) to critique the pope (minus theological training) all day long and into the night, whereas Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin<\/strong><\/span> (Bachelor\u2019s degree in philosophy and some grad school), who has written now four critiques of the Easter Letter (one<\/a> \/ two<\/a> \/ three<\/a> \/ four<\/a>)\u00a0 cannot do so at all<\/em>, because, you see, he has \u2014 so we\u2019re told \u2014 no credentials to do so<\/a>. Readers may try to figure out this<\/em> peculiar \u201clogic.\u201d It\u2019s beyond my pay grade. But in any event, Joseph Shaw writes:<\/p>\n
In order to uncover the Pope\u2019s intentions, the letter has to make what its authors think are reasonable interpretations of different documents and papal actions, such as of promoting or praising individuals known to have certain views. If this is a promulgation of heresy, it is promulgation by\u00a0drift:<\/em>\u00a0it is the\u00a0drift<\/em>\u00a0of papal works, papal actions, and papal policy, which is the problem.<\/p>\n
The lack of clarity here is one reason why I, and no doubt others, have not signed this letter, although I signed\u00a0earlier documents<\/a>\u00a0(and\u00a0here<\/a>) calling on Pope Francis to clarify his teaching. It seems to me to go beyond what can be clearly and simply stated about Pope Francis\u2019 teaching.\u00a0(\u201cCan Pope Francis really be accused of committing heresy?\u201d<\/a>, LifeSite News<\/em>, 5-7-19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ed Feser<\/strong> <\/span>chimes in similarly:<\/p>\n
[W]hether and how a pope can be charged with\u00a0formal<\/i>\u00a0heresy, and what the consequences would be if he were guilty of it, are simply much less clear-cut canonically and theologically than the letter implies.\u00a0\u00a0Some of the Church\u2019s greatest theologians have speculated about the matter, and while there are serious arguments for various possible positions, there is no theological consensus and no magisterial teaching which resolves the issue.\u00a0Moreover, a pope falling into formal heresy would be about as grave a crisis for the Church as can be imagined.\u00a0\u00a0So, maximum caution is called for before making such a charge, and in my opinion it is simply rash flatly to accuse the pope of \u201cthe canonical delict of heresy,\u201d as the letter does.<\/p>\n
Some of the arguments deployed are also ill-advised, to say the least.\u00a0For example, it was foolish to appeal to the allegedly sinister shape of the staff that the pope used in a particular mass as evidence of heretical intent.\u00a0\u00a0To be sure, the open letter does not make much of this, but it is a bad argument, and the letter\u2019s critics have understandably pounced on it.\u00a0(\u201cSome comments on the open letter\u201d<\/a>, 5-6-19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I shall also cite canon lawyer Edward Peters<\/strong><\/span>: no stranger to criticism of Pope Francis. He is in this same category of \u201csympathetic critics.\u201d And here is his expressed opinion:<\/p>\n
[A]s an outline of a canonical case against a pope for heresy, the letter stumbles in several crucial respects. Most seriously, it fails to grapple with the \u201cprinciple of benignity\u201d in the interpretation of law and evidence.<\/p>\n
For many centuries canon law has expressly demanded that \u201cin penal matters the more benign interpretation must be followed\u201d (Regula Iuris 49), meaning, in brief, that the benefit of the doubt is to be accorded the accused in a criminal case. This interpretive principle goes beyond canon law: it is fundamental to the Western legal tradition.<\/p>\n
The principle of benignity demands that, in every facet of the penal process, one must, for example, construe penal norms as narrowly as is reasonably possible (c 18) and judge the accused only and strictly in accord with law (c 221 \u00a7 3). But the letter consistently fails to appreciate, or even allude to, the principle of benignity as it impacts any penal matter, let alone one involving a pope.<\/p>\n
The letter claims, for example, after reciting several statements by Francis, that \u201cunderstood in their most obvious sense, the statements listed above are heretical.\u201d But that assertion, even if it were factually correct, is canonically irrelevant for, per the principle of benignity, if an orthodox interpretation exists for an ambiguous theological assertion, that benign interpretation must be ascribed to the words of the accused \u2013 regardless of whether the accused actually intended such an interpretation. . . .<\/p>\n
Heresy cases are not impossible under canon law, but they are, and are meant to be, very difficult. . . . But as a canonical brief for a papal heresy case, I find it unconvincing. (\u201cThe heresy letter is intelligent, but doesn\u2019t quite convince\u201d<\/a>, Catholic Herald<\/em>, 5-9-19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Likewise, Fr. Raymond J. de Souza<\/span><\/strong>, in the midst of a flurry of critical remarks about the pope\u2019s teachings and style and lack of clarification, etc., flatly conceded that there is no compelling charge of heresy here:<\/p>\n
A certain consensus has emerged that where there is smoke there is usually fire, but in this case there is plenty of smoke but no real fire. And calling for the fire brigade when there isn\u2019t a fire actually raging may lead to a certain complacency about all the smoke in the air.<\/p>\n
I agree with the consensus that Pope Francis is not guilty of heresy, in part due to the fact his teaching style is not sufficiently clear as to sustain such a charge.<\/p>\n
I would not make the charge myself. (\u201cThe Puzzling Pontificate of Pope Francis\u201d<\/a>, National Catholic Register<\/em>, 5-9-19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Many of these same people have complained that the pope and bishops have not made clear that Amoris Laetitia<\/em>, in particular, is completely orthodox (if indeed it is). Fr. de Souza seems to think that this is untrue: \u201cthe Holy Father himself, echoed by many senior bishops, has insisted that no doctrinal change has been made.\u201d So they have done it, but people simply refuse to accept their authoritative determination.<\/p>\n
My friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi<\/strong><\/span>, a systematic theologian and editor and translator of the latest version of Denzinger and the revised version of Ludwig Ott\u2019s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma<\/em>, has shown that the answers to the concerns are already present in the document itself, and he has written several additional helpful and highly relevant articles:<\/p>\n
Does\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/em>\u00a0303 Really Undermine Catholic Moral Teaching?<\/a>\u00a0(Robert Fastiggi & Dawn Eden Goldstein,\u00a0La Stampa<\/em>\u00a0\/\u00a0Vatican Insider<\/em>, 9-26-17)<\/p>\n
Dr. Robert Fastiggi Defends\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/em>\u00a0Against Critics<\/a>\u00a0(Dave Armstrong,\u00a0Biblical Evidence for Catholicism<\/em>, 10-3-17)<\/p>\n
Critics of Amoris laetitia ignore Ratzinger\u2019s rules for faithful theological discourse\u00a0<\/a>(Robert Fastiggi & Dawn Eden Goldstein, \u00a0La Stampa<\/em>\u00a0\/\u00a0Vatican Insider<\/em>, 10-4-17)<\/p>\n
Dr. Fastiggi & Dr. Goldstein Debate Dr. Shaw Regarding Pope Francis<\/a>\u00a0(Dave Armstrong,\u00a0Biblical Evidence for Catholicism<\/em>, 10-9-17)<\/p>\n
Dr. Fastiggi Replies to Dr. Brugger Regarding\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>(Dave Armstrong,\u00a0Biblical Evidence for Catholicism<\/em>,\u00a010-12-17)<\/p>\n
Responding to the Five\u00a0Dubia\u00a0<\/em>from\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/em>\u00a0Itself<\/a>\u00a0(Dr. Robert Fastiggi,\u00a0Vatican Insider<\/em>\u00a0\/\u00a0La Stampa<\/em>,\u00a03-9-18)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And many others have shown that it is orthodox, too, as seen in my lengthy collection of defenses of Pope Francis<\/a>.<\/p>\n
As a matter of record, since it is a concern of all these people, that the pope clarify confusion and questions raised, I agree generally, that he should do so, and that (ideally and for the sake of peace and unity and clarity) he should have answered the dubia<\/em>. I passionately argued this in National Catholic Register<\/em> <\/a>(9-30-17).<\/p>\n
Dr. Kwasniewski wouldn\u2019t be himself if he didn\u2019t sling around the accusation of \u201cultramontanist!\u201d: to be applied to anyone who dares defend the Holy Father.\u00a0 He unsuccessfully tried this game in his debate with me<\/em> <\/a>on \u201cthe reform of the reform\u201d (of the Mass). And so he writes in his present eloquent but relentlessly fallacious and sophistical screed<\/a>: \u201cThe open letter has stirred conservatives to a frenzy because they can\u2019t bear the thought of a heretic on the throne of Peter.\u201d<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t know who he is talking about (he conveniently didn\u2019t cite<\/em> anyone along these lines, which is what one does when one wishes to broad-brush and caricature). Speaking for myself, I have always contended that it is theoretically and even actually<\/em> possible, apart from\u00a0\u201cinfallible\u00a0ex cathedra\u00a0<\/em>pronouncements,\u201d as Kwasniewski agrees. I wrote a paper about this very topic over eleven years ago (12-1-07), entitled:\u00a0Resisting Heretic Popes: Classic Catholic Reflections<\/a>. I stated therein:<\/p>\n
The notion of popes\u00a0possibly<\/em>\u00a0being heretics (and what to do in that eventuality) is nothing new or alarming.\u00a0 . . .<\/p>\n
There are several acknowledgements of this hypothetical scenario both before and after Gratian (12th century): . . .<\/p>\n
One famous example of a pope being resisted for heresy is the incident regarding Pope John XXII (1249-1334). . . .<\/p>\n
I have cited popes and some of the greatest teachers in the Church, including St. Thomas Aquinas, showing that popes could indeed be resisted if they went too far.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So, nothing<\/em> new here whatsoever (big yawn). I was writing about this stuff six years before Pope Francis became pope, and long before that, too. This brings us back around \u2014 full circle \u2014 to the question at hand:<\/p>\n
1) Is Pope Francis a heretic, or demonstrably guilty of espousing or promulgating specific heretical tenets?<\/p>\n
2) On what canonical<\/em> \/ theological basis does one incontrovertibly establish<\/em> this charge?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As has been made clear above, from six people not averse at all to criticizing Pope Francis, and also \u201cJimmy\u201d [cowboy-hat-wearing hick from the Ozarks] Akins (Fr. Rutler\u2019s<\/a> ridiculous way of citing his name), the answer is a resounding \u201cno!\u201d or at the very least the legal-type judgment: of \u201cnot proven beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d<\/p>\n
Kwasniewski, undaunted, sees \u201cseven manifestly heretical propositions\u201d. For him, in his uncannily Luther-like ire and zeal, \u201cFrancis runs circles around Honorius. Francis is an unprecedented trial for the Church of God.\u201d He\u2019s entitled to his opinion (however silly and groundless). We\u2019re also entitled to ours<\/em>.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Photo credit:<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Cross Examination<\/em> by<\/span>\u00a0Nick Youngson <\/a>[CC BY-SA 3.0<\/a>\u00a0Alpha Stock Images<\/a> \/\u00a0The Blue Diamond Gallery<\/a>]<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Let\u2019s cut to the quick. The bottom-line questions at hand are: 1) Is Pope Francis a heretic, or demonstrably guilty of espousing or promulgating specific heretical tenets? 2) On what canonical \/ theological basis does one incontrovertibly establish this charge? Even a reactionary signatory to the Easter Letter like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (one of 13 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":32795,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[2613,3438,3434,8552,4390,232,156,8555,74,324],"class_list":["post-32789","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-amoris-laetitia","tag-catholic-moral-law","tag-dubia","tag-easter-letter","tag-filial-correction","tag-heresy","tag-pope-francis","tag-pope-francis-heresy","tag-radical-catholic-reactionaries","tag-schism"],"yoast_head":"\n
Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Is Pope Francis a heretic, or guilty of promulgating any specific heresy? On what canonical \/ theological basis does one establish this? Even his big critics say no.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Is Pope Francis a heretic, or guilty of promulgating any specific heresy? On what canonical \/ theological basis does one establish this? Even his big critics say no.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-05-10T17:34:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-05-10T18:51:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/05\/CrossExamination2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"426\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html\",\"name\":\"Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-05-10T17:34:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-05-10T18:51:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Is Pope Francis a heretic, or guilty of promulgating any specific heresy? On what canonical \/ theological basis does one establish this? Even his big critics say no.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy","description":"Is Pope Francis a heretic, or guilty of promulgating any specific heresy? On what canonical \/ theological basis does one establish this? Even his big critics say no.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy","og_description":"Is Pope Francis a heretic, or guilty of promulgating any specific heresy? On what canonical \/ theological basis does one establish this? Even his big critics say no.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2019-05-10T17:34:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-05-10T18:51:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":426,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/05\/CrossExamination2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html","name":"Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-05-10T17:34:56+00:00","dateModified":"2019-05-10T18:51:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Is Pope Francis a heretic, or guilty of promulgating any specific heresy? On what canonical \/ theological basis does one establish this? Even his big critics say no.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2019\/05\/papal-critics-concede-no-proof-of-canonical-papal-heresy.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32789","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32789"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32789\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32795"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}