Akin To Heresy

Vatican II sect author and apologist Jimmy Akin of "Catholic Answers" (https://www.catholic.com/) will strain all credulity to defend the indefensible. Nothing false "Pope" Francis says or does will keep him from explaining how he's "really Catholic" and not heretical, just badly misunderstood and much maligned. Of course we fools need Mr. Akin, a former Protestant who joined the Vatican II sect, to explain it all to us. It would be unimaginable just 60 years ago to think we need a layman to explain the words and deeds of the pope. What kind of Magisterium (teaching authority) can't teach without constant explanations of what was really meant from self-styled lay "theologians"?

Recently, Akin defended Francis against a letter (signed by 19 members of the Vatican II sect) released April 30, 2019, which accuses Bergoglio with heresy and asks the "bishops" to take action. It was signed by academics, including a "priest," Aidan Nichols, an author and "theologian." The fifteen page letter reads in part, "We are addressing this letter to you for two reasons: first to accuse Pope Francis of the canonical delict [i.e., crime]of heresy, and second, to request that you take the steps necessary to deal with the grave situation of a heretical pope." (See https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/theologians-accuse-pope-francis-of-heresy).

Discussing a "heretical pope" is a contradiction in terms, much like discussing a "square circle." There can be no such things by the very definition of the terms involved. Akin, on the other hand, wants people to jam square pegs into round holes and see how everything fits nice and neat in his own wacky version of "Catholicism." Akin does not attempt to defend Bergoglio by pointing out to the signatories that a heretic cannot, by Divine Law, be pope. To admit that would be both correct Catholic theology and accepting a premise that would put him in the position of maintaining the possibility of (horrors!) sedevacantism.

In his May 2nd article for the National Catholic Reporter online, entitled "On Charging a Pope with Heresy," Akin sets forth his case that Bergoglio is not guilty of heresy, and what would be necessary to make the charge stick. (See http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/on-charging-a-pope-with-heresy). Rather than get bogged down with his defense of false pope Francis, this post will concentrate on Akin's own explanation of what elements would be necessary for Bergoglio to be guilty of heresy. I will then demonstrate how two of his criteria are at odds with Church teaching, and when corrected, Bergoglio does indeed meet the requirements for being a heretic.

Akin's Elements for Heresy

Akin writes that the following criteria must be met to show the pope is guilty of heresy:

1. The Magisterium has infallibly defined some specific truth

2. It has infallibly defined that this specific truth is divinely revealed, creating a dogma
3. The pope has been baptized (that’s easy)
4. The pope’s words or actions indicate that he refuses to believe the dogma
5. His words or actions cannot be understood in a way consistent with the dogma
6. He does so obstinately

Let's apply them to Bergoglio. As to #1; the Magisterium has defined some specific truth. In his article, Akin states:

...for a truth to require divine and Catholic faith, the following conditions must be met:

1. It must be divinely revealed (i.e., be found in Scripture or Tradition)
2. The Magisterium must have proposed it to be divinely revealed
3. The Magisterium must have done so, either by (a) the solemn magisterium or (b) the ordinary and universal magisterium.

Jorge Bergoglio denies many dogmas, but I will focus on two: (a) There is only One True Church, and (b) that One True Church is absolutely necessary for salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus--Outside The Church There Is No Salvation). Pope Eugene IV, in the Apostolic Constitution Cantate Domino, teaches ex cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms-deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (See Denzinger #714; Emphasis mine)

Pope Innocent III in 1215: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423; Emphasis mine)

Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum (1302), infallibly declared, "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The Nicene Creed: "...I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." (Emphasis mine).

That pretty much makes the case that the Magisterium has defined there is only ONE True Church, and outside of Her, no one is saved. Lest anyone have reservations as to Akin's second criterion being met, i.e., "It has infallibly defined that this specific truth is divinely revealed, creating a dogma," theologian Salaverri teaches: "From the documents of the Church it is clear that the necessity of belonging to the true Church is a dogma of faith." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB [1955], pg. 446; Emphasis in original). Also, "Therefore it is an Article of divine and Catholic Faith to be professed by all that the Church necessarily and indefectibly is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." (Ibid, pg. 472; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine). Akin's fist two criteria are met. The third criterion is admitted by Akin, and acknowledged by all, that Bergoglio was validly baptized in the True Church.

The fourth criterion in Akin's article is "The pope’s words or actions indicate that he refuses to believe the dogma." What has Bergoglio said? "Proselytism is solemn nonsense." Is it taken out of context? Not if you believe his good friend and co-author, Rabbi Abraham Skorka. The leftist rabbi has said, "When he [Francis] speaks about evangelization, the idea is to evangelize Christians or Catholics," to reach "higher dimensions of faith" and a deepened commitment to social justice, Skorka said. "This is the idea of evangelization that Bergoglio is stressing — not to evangelize Jews. This he told me, on several opportunities." (See https://news.yahoo.com/rabbi-whose-good-friend-became-pope-060646630.html).
It is impossible to believe there is no salvation outside the Church and not try to convert everyone--including Jews--just as Our Lord commanded us to do in The Great Commission, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded thee. And surely I am with thee always, to the consummation of the world." (St. Matthew 28:19-20).

How about "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being." (See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pope_Francis). The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. As Pope Pius XII taught: If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ."But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond. (See Mystici Corporis Christi, [1943], para. #13 and 14). God and His Church are inextricably united. God is indeed Catholic because that is His One True Church; His Mystical Body on Earth.

Furthermore, Bergoglio adheres to the teaching of Vatican II, which says, "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation..." (See Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #3; Emphasis mine). He believes in the false ecclesiology of Vatican II, wherein there is a "Church of Christ" distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, yet resides there in its "fullness" because it contains all of the "elements" of the Church of Christ. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too, and leads to salvation. The New Ecclesiology is mutually exclusive of the True Ecclesiology pre-Vatican II.

Akin's fifth criterion is "His [Bergoglio's] words or actions cannot be understood in a way consistent with the dogma." This allows Akin to give a false veneer of orthodoxy to Bergoglio's statements and actions by employing "semantic gymnastics." For example, he might say something along the lines that when Bergoglio said, "There is no Catholic God," what he really meant was that God created all people and not just Catholics, so in that sense "there is no Catholic God" because he is Creator of all regardless of religion. Of course, he would have to ignore the context as well as the testimony of men like Skorka, to whom Bergoglio explained himself. Nevertheless, we need not bother delving into that difficulty. The actual problem is that Akin's fifth criterion is contrary to Church teaching. It is a false principle.

As was written in my post "The Case Against Roncalli:" The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed "heretical by defect." This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:

"After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances."

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because "it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith...insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question."

Hence, Bergoglio's statements, even if ambiguous, must be interpreted as heretical, or more precisely, "heretical by defect." Finally, Akin's sixth criterion tells us Bergoglio must be "obstinate" in his heresy; i.e., the alleged need for "canonical warnings," proof that he knows he is being heretical, and other R&R claptrap. Once again, he is wrong:

According to theologian MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, CUA Press, [1932], pg. 35) Again, MacKenzie, "If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (Ibid, pg. 48; Emphasis mine).

Summation

As to the six criteria of Jimmy Akin for showing the pope to be guilty of heresy, the first four are met. Bergoglio denies(at least!) two truths of Divine and Catholic Faith. He's baptized. His words and actions, even from before he was "elected pope" indicate he refuses to believe these dogmas. The last two criteria are false principles; the Church cannot teach ambiguously as Akin believes, and "obstinacy" is not a requirement, as theologian MacKenzie explains. Conclusion: Bergoglio is a heretic, and from before his election, as he accepted the heretical Vatican II ecclesiology. Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio cannot have fallen from office because he could never attain to it in the first place:

 According to theologian Baldii, "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics..." (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

Is Jimmy Akin of good will, or is he so invested in "saving" the false papacy of Bergoglio that he will go against the manifest weight of the credible evidence and refuse to recognize that there has been no pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958? I have demonstrated that false pope Francis does reject two dogmas of the Faith, and he refuses to believe them, as evidenced in both his words and actions. Akin goes against Church teaching in his last two criteria for showing a pope is a heretic because the Church cannot teach ambiguously, and "obstinacy" ("warnings, " alleged "trials" by clerics, etc.) are neither possible or necessary for a pope who falls into heresy to lose his authority. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).

 Lastly, Bergoglio was a heretic prior to his "election" which means he was precluded from obtaining the papal office by Divine Law. Let's pray for Jimmy Akin to give people real "Catholic Answers" regarding heresy and "Pope" Francis.