RCC Theologians have accused the pope of heresy. The last time they did so in 1333

Several dozen conservative Catholic theologians, priests, and academics have formally accused the current Pope of France of spreading heresy. He was supposed to do so in 2016 by publishing the Amoris laetitia (The Joy of Love), in which he expressed openness to the divorced and re-married believers.


The accusations in the form of a 25-page letter were signed by 62 signatories and handed over to Vatican in August. Theologians accuse the Pope of holding and spreading seven heretical attitudes related to marriage, moral life, and sacraments.

The letter is in the form of the Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis or "The Correction of Spreading Heresies". Lastly, this form of warning to the head of the Catholic Church was used against Pope John XXII. in 1333. The Pope renounced his "delusions", but only on the deathbed.

In connection with the Joy of Love, pope Francis was sent four cardinal letters last year, calling for clarification of some doubts.The pope has not yet responded to any of the initiatives.

-----

Taken and translated from (only in Czech) https://www.novinky.cz/zahranicni/e...irstvi-naposledy-tak-ucinili-v-roce-1333.html

I think Jesus got it right when he said let the dead bury their dead.

Unbiblical people arguing about unbiblical theology aren't worth bothering about.

BTW Google translator failed me (again). Not "the pope of France", but "pope Francis"

Agreed.

But this news is still much closer to Christian News Forum than Obama, Trump and similar topics which are also very discussed here.

There can only be pain in this action but perhaps a few will see the hypocrisy of Romanism. If even a few seek Christ through this turmoil in the Roman Catholic church it will be a blessing.


For the cause of Christ
Roger

Let the dead bury the dead.

I was wondering about that... I was thinking I'd like to run for "Pope of Texas"... but the theology and I don't get along...

Yes it could start a trend. Every Country/State has its own Pope. They could have a sort of Popularity contest every year like Eurovision. The winner gets to sit around in the Vatican for a year with all the perks included.

oh what sins prevail!...

Exactly....I was thinking the title should read...RCC theologians and the pope preach heresy........!

Here is the biblical description of the church. Show any faith other than catholic that meets this description...

The bible tells us that Jesus started a Church 2000 years ago in 33 AD (Dan 9:21-26). This church will conquer and inherit the sovereignty of the Roman Empire through the induction of a rock (Dan 2; Rev 17:14; Mat 16:18). This Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15). To be part of this church you have to be born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). This Church will no longer follower the seventh day covenant practice of the Sabbath (Col 2:16). That all generations of this Church will call Mary blessed (Luke 1:48) and that Mary will receive our prayers (Ps 45; Luke 2:35). This Church will have a sacrifice performed by the gentiles in all places, from morning till night (Mal 1:11). This Passover sacrifice will continue until the return of Christ the king (1 Cor 11:26-29). Jesus starts His biblical church with the induction of Simon the rock (Dan 2; John 1:42; Mat 16:18). This Church Jesus started has to follow the authority of the man who has been given the Key of David in an apostolic line back to Peter, the pope (Rev 3:7-10). When Jesus gave the key of David to Peter He promised to protected this church from the gates of hell (Mat 16:18-19). Jesus prays for the pope so his faith will not fail and it is his job to instruct the church (Luke 22:32). The biblical church hierarchy has been given the power to forgive or retain sins (John 20:21-23). If you do not follow this Church authority then you will not be part of the true biblical church (Mat 18:17). The church is where we find the wisdom of God (Eph 3:10). According to the bible Christ has left in His church a perpetual succession of orthodox pastors and teachers, to preserve the faithful in unity and truth (Eph 4:10-15). That this church will never come to an end (Eph 3:21). This church teaches that faith without works is dead as taught in the bible (James 2:24). This only fits the Catholic Church as no other faith claiming Christ started 2000 years ago according to the history they have kept. Some try to get around this fact by claiming that the Catholic Church killed off the true church a short time after Pentecost which is why there is no record of their faith and their church is a revival, but this man made tradition nullifies the word of God which states the church Jesus started will never come to an end (Eph 3:21). None of them conquered the Roman Empire or even existed during its reign so they therefore cannot be biblical. Out of thousands of faiths claiming Christ only the Catholic Church fits this biblical requirement. None of them follow the man with the key of David in an apostolic line back to Peter. None of them call Mary blessed and none of them have a sacrifice performed in all places by the gentiles. This biblical description only fits the Catholic Church. So if you are not following the only Church that fits the description of the bible and just so happens to be the Church that gave us the bible then you are not part of the church according to the bible (Mat 18:17). The bible even says that just having faith in Jesus is not enough, that you have to follow His will (Mat 7:21) and He started a Church (Mat 16:18).

There is no indication that Jesus was saying that Peter was the "rock" that the church was to be built upon. He was making a play on words of sorts... using Peter's name, which means "rock" to say that Peter's testimony as to who Jesus was, was the foundation (or rock) of the new body of Christ... the church. He did not "induct" Peter into anything.

Hey, Peter means rock, "And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter" (John 1:42). Cephas is Aramaic for rock so Peter means rock. Jesus and His apostles spoke in Aramaic. When you put this in context of the sentence Peter is the rock Jesus is speaking about.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (Cephas, rock); and upon this rock (Cephas, rock) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mat 16:18).

If Jesus is not speaking of Peter then the sentence does not make sense.

Actually, it does. Like I said, Jesus was doing a "play on words".... the words used are different.... Petros (IIRC) for "Peter", and petra for "rock".... He was saying, they call you Peter, the rock, but on the rock of truth that you just spoke, my church will be built.

Jesus did not appoint Peter as the first "pope".

When Jesus told Peter to "get behind me, Satan", do you think he was actually saying that Peter was Satan? He was saying, Peter, quit being used as a pawn of Satan, trying to tempt me...

Actually, the difference in the words for rock exist because when Greek word for rock used for Peter is masculine. But the when Jesus says upon this rock, it is in the feminine. Words in Greek have genders, rocks are feminine. Peter is a man and this word was not usally attributed to men. This is why they are different.

But Jesus and His apostles were not speaking Greek, they were speaking Aramaic and Cephas is rock.

Now this is not a play on words, that would not make sense. Jesus brings up the fact that He named Simon Cephas and then upon this Cephas He builds this church. So Jesus is saying you are rock and upon this rock. Which rock, the rock He just mentioned Simon.

When Jesus says get behind me satan, satan means adversary. So Jesus is saying that what Peter is thinking is against His plans. It is not the same as saying you are the rock and upon this rock.

Well, we still disagree. You go ahead with your Roman Catholic doctrine, with Peter being the first "pope".... God on earth.

I believe I'll stick with just believing in Jesus. I will bow down and worship no man on earth. And I will pray to no one but God... never to the "mother of God".. and...... well, I could go on for days, but I'm sure you get the point.

You can go by this line of thinking if you wish but you cannot then claim to be following Jesus. Jesus gave Peter authority over the church by giving him the key of David which makes Peter the vicar of Christ aka prime minister, "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Mat 16:19). The Jesus gives the other apostles a similar power and then claims that if you do not follow this authority you are not part of the church (Mat 18:17). In the Gospel of Luke chapter 12 Jesus says that He has left a steward in charge of His church.

So according to the bible, the true church of Christ has to still exist today headed by the man with the key of David in an unbroken apostolic line back to Peter. This is only the Catholic Church.

Also, according to what you are claiming your faith cannot be biblical. The bible tells you in the old testament that the future true followers will intercede to Christ the king through His queen and the Lord will make her name praised by all generations (Ps 45). Jesus is a Davidic king and in the Davidic kingdom the queen is the mother of the king, Mary (1 King 2:19). Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the bible records Mary making reference to this old testament prophecy (Luke 1:48).

So if you are not asking for Mary's intercession then you are not doing what the bible says the true church is to do.

God Bless

While there may have been a succession of "Bishops of Rome" with authority over that city
the first real Pope was Boniface III in 607AD who managed to declare and enact that the Bishop of Rome
was the supreme bishop of authority over ALL other bishops throughout Christendom, including Constantinople.

The Papacy of Rome commences with Boniface III in 607AD.

No, this is a myth. For example, pope Damasus commissioned the canon of scripture in the 4th-century. Well before 607 AD.

But before the official canon of scripture there were other books that were accepted as biblical. Not to be confused with heretical writings such as the Gnostic gospels. These books included all the current biblical books and others such as the writings of pope Clement, 1st-century pope, 3rd after Peter. Another book was the Shepard of Hermas which says that it is the job of the pope to instruct the entire church.

The student of John the apostle Ignatius of Antioch whose writings were also considered biblical until the 4th-century again says the pope and church in Rome is the head of the entire church.

When it became legal to be Catholic in the Roman Empire in the 4th-century is when the official canon was made and these books were removed with a few others not because they are not good and holy but because they have no place as part of readings in the Catholic mass. These books are still considered holy reading.