"It isn't a No True Scotchman Fallacy."
@The New Knights TemplarCorrect. It's a No True Sco
tsman Fallacy.
:D...because you're attempting to defend an assertion
"Anyone who doesn't think Francis is a heretic for actions like the Pachamama stunt" by disallowing, by definition, all counterexamples (those people)
"need to reevaluate their thinking."It's a fallacy because it's entirely possible for people to NOT think Francis is a heretic for actions like the Pachamama stunt
without needing to reevaluate their thinking. You're presupposing your conclusion is valid, not having shown that it is so, and then discounting those who haven't reevaluated their thinking until they agree with
you. Therein lies the fallacious appeal to purity, the
"No True Scotchman", so to speak.
;-)" DELIBERATE errors contrary to Church teachings are heresy, especially ones such as intentional idolatry -- it's blatant heresy."Canon Law 751, which covers heresy,
says no such thing This also exemplfies the dangers of judging heresy in a so-called
"informal capacity". Canon Law also makes no such additional distinction concerning idolatry or any other errors. It states, simply:
--"Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;"--A
deliberate error and an
obstinate error are not the same thing. I will explain why since Can. 751 covers the same ground (albeit worded differently) as CCC 2089, cf.
--"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same..."--Notice that distinction. A "deliberate" error is not, in itself, heresy. It becomes heresy only through
obstinacy.
None of which applies to Pope Francis' "Pachamama stunt" for the following reasons:
Obstinate" shows a deliberate course of action
in the face of correction, i.e.
"stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion."(Merriam-Webster dictionary entry: "Obstinate")An
obstinate denial or an
obstinate doubt (after baptism) shows that:
a.) the accused heretic has expressed a denial or doubt
b.) The Church has disgreed with that denial or doubt as contrary to some truth believed to be divine and Catholic faith.
c.) The Church has attempted to
correct the accused heretic
d.) the accused heretic has
opposed that correction by the Church and
continued to deny or doubt that truth.
Regarding Pope Francis,
a.) His stunt, while astoundingly gauche, did not involve him publicly denying a "truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith" nor did he express "an obstinate doubt concerning the same"
More importantly points b.)-d.)
have not yet occurred. These latter points raise a serious question...
Who has the temporal authority to represent the Church in correcting the supposed errors of the Church's highest temporal authority?That isn't a rhetorical question, either, because only
that individual (or group) could represent The Church in formally correcting the Pope's errors, i.e. points b.)- c.).
"So I'll present my original question to you which you ignored the first time."I
didn't ignore it. You asked,
"So what are you saying? That you don't believe Francis has been heretical?"
,,,and I replied, "I'm saying laymen do not have the Canonical authority to charge, try, or convict fellow Catholics or Catholic clergy, much less the Pope, of heresy."
That is what I'm saying and
those are my thoughts on the subject. I was concerned I might be accused of patronizing you by explicitly pointing that out. Now that I'm
forced to, well...
;-)"Are you saying you don't think Francis is heretical? [Edited here] Better yet let me rephrase the question. DO YOU think Francis is heretical?"My own opinion is grounded in Canon Law and the Catechism you cited. I believe Pope Francis very probably has expressed errors. However, for those errors to be
heretical and the Pope a
heretic, it would require everything I've explained to occur
and that has not happened. This is a
legalist viewpoint, I know, but one of The Church's greatest strengths is that it has a detailed and precise set of laws and teachings which cover such important issues.
I'll give you a counter-example... the Lutheran-esque approach Defeat Modernism so painfully displays here.
Lutherans have a fondness for making baseless accusations with no further evidence than
"sola scriptura", more precisely
their own interpretations of it. Personally, I find the accusation that Pope Francis is a heretic and guilty of
"intentional idolatry" as you call it especially ironic since Lutherans accuse Catholics,
all Catholics, of idolatry as well.
Lutherans in the American South, the Baptists in particular, are prone to making this accusation given their "fire 'n brimstone" religious culture. At least when the accusations are made verbally, their lush regional dialect elevates a centuries old error into unintentional comedy...
"Yew Papists are all uh bunch of eye-doll worshi-purse with yer ferbiddn statues of Hour Lowerd and that Bloo Hore uh Babi-lon. As we read in
Eggs-o-dus Twenny Verse Fower, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."...and that's what yew idol-worshippin' Papists are still doin' right here 'n now! Y'all gonna burn fer it, too."
Trying to explain why they're wrong using
The Church's teachings is a waste of time.
You see... every Lutheran is his own
self-appointed judge of idolatry and
who is guilty of it. Their reasoning goes...
Scripture is the word of God and always correct.
The Lutheran's judgements are based on Scripture
Therefore the Lutheran's judgements are also always correct.
:PYou're intelligent enough, I'm sure, to see the point I'm making and how it applies to accusations against Pope Francis.
;-)