I agree, 100% on what father has just said. As a Canadian, we could use more priest like him. I’m not a Byzantine catholic, but I have friends who are and there’s a possibility that father Charron is from a distant branch of my family. All the same. God bless and God bless Bishop Strickland.
Fr Jason is speaking heresies. According to the 8th ecumenical council, no one can judge the first see. You can not publicly speak against the papacy. The pope can not teach heresy, and fr jason is implying that the pope is teaching heresy.
Those who claim Pope Francis teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture! I challenge this Priest to a public debate regarding the deuterocanonical of Pope Francis as Biblical or not! As lies were told of Jesus Christ at His trial, so too even now of Pope Francis by modern day elders! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Most Orthodox and Traditionlist get their Church teaching from youtubers and influencers than actually reading the Catechism and Cannon Law themselves. it's very frustrating to see a group that tradition and doctrine but dont even know what the traditions are themselves other than word of mouth of schismatics.
And THE Shepherd is the Successor of Peter-- the TRUE faithful listen to HIS voice, not the voice of ANYONE else (whether priest, bishop, Cardinal, or even Patriarch) who contradicts THAT voice of PETER (for the voice of PETER, i.e., the Pope in His MAGISTERIUM, is the voice of CHRIST).
@@jmjorapronobis1328 St. Peter was corrected for his ACTIONS, not his teachings. Huge difference: the Church is unified in the faith TAUGHT by Peter and his Successors, NOT their actions. Peace.
@jmjorapronobis1328 also, he wasn't correcting him publicly for the world to see. Paul did not go to each church calling Peter a heretic. He privately admonished peter.
Bishop Strictkand said Pope Francis does not teach the Catholic faith. If he’s correct, is it possible the Church got papal infallibility wrong and the Orthodox are correct? They believe he’s the first amongst equals but also don’t think it’s impossible for a Patriarch or Bishop to fall into heresy.
No. Papal infallibility comes in very special circumstances: namely ex-Cathedra declarations on faith and morals. If the Pope is not making such declarations (e.g., spoken answers in informal interviews, or vague documents crafted by Cardinal Fernandez with the Pope's signature, or comments on things that don't pertain faith and morals) the Pope is not guaranteed to be infallible. The Pope can say "it is raining" and be wrong about it. In other words, the Pope can simply choose not to teach the Faith by teaching falsehoods in his informal magisterium, and by not teaching anything infallibly ex-Cathedra. Moreover, if the Pope attempts to formally teach something heretical on matters of faith and morals, it is not that the Pope is not infallible anymore; it Is that the man making such declarations has apostatized and he is not the Pope anymore. Bishop Strickland (not Barron) has never questioned the Pope's status as the Pope, nor his authority to teach infallibly ex-Cathedra. Let's not forget that the Papal infallibility is not the only aspect on which the Orthodox are wrong. Papal infallibility wasn't formally taught until the Vatican I Council, which was centuries after the Orthodox went into schism.
@ As a Catholic, I find that to be a cop out answer, almost a way to justify major errors like “all religions are paths to God,” without holding him accountable. I think Francis is the Pope, I’m not arguing that. I can not ignore Pope Benedict writing the East should not be forced to accept anything more than they did in the first millenia. What did they accept then? That along with the Bishop of Rome document that recently came out makes me wonder if the East is correct: He is the first amongst equals, but can make mistakes like any other Bishop. I think the West is much more charitable and at least considers the East valid Churches with valid sacraments unlike the East. It’s a very nerve racking topic as you can see the importance of the Pope in the first ecumenical councils but papal infallibility isn’t taught until Vatican 1. Both sides have valid arguments.
@@cfban The Orthodox went into schism by rejecting changes in faith made by the church in the West (who did not use Papal Authority like they had in the 2nd millennium according to the Catholic Church), how does that make sense to you?
@@danman101stefan the Latin Church correctly added the Filioque in the VI century, and it wasn't a problem. Centuries later the Greeks retroactively raised a fuss about it as an excuse to break away for political reasons (even though they still wanted the Latins to help against the Jihadis...). The schism was resolved in Florence in the XV century, and Constantinople and the Emperor Constantine XI returned to the Church. After the fall of Constantinople, the Ottoman Sultan appointed a puppet named Gennadius Scholarius as the Greek Patriarch and made him break Communion again. So yeah, revisionist "Orthodox" history won't fly here.
@@cfban I think they could get over the Filioque as there’s evidence they accepted the West saying it and in reality doesn’t change our belief in the Trinity. The issue was the authority of the Pope and 4 Patriarchs disagreed with Rome. Here you have a Bishop respected by everyone saying the Pope does not teach the Catholic faith. If he does not, the Orthodox position seems legitimate: He is the Patriarch of Rome with Apostolic succession, first amongst equals but not infallible. You yourself said papal infallibility wasn’t formally decried until Vatican 1.
For what being a schismatic. No one judges the first see. You can not publicly speak out against the pope. The is cannon according to the 8th ecumenical council.
He, and Bishop Strickland, are in violation of Canon Law, and authentic Church Tradition and teaching, by encouraging rebellion against the MAGISTERIUM of a Roman Pontiff. This is not good, it is bad, very bad. Pray for Fr. Jason and Bishop Strickland.
No! According to the 8th ecumenical council, you can not publicly speak ill of the papacy. That's even when he's not teaching. You have a duty as catholics to understand the pope, and if you can not, you must find someone who does. If you can not find someone speak to your bishop and your bishop to the pope.
@ thank you for your reply. I will read the acts of the council. That said, given that a Pope (not necessarily Francis) or any Catholic might espouse error publicly, isn’t it obligatory on the faithful to publicly identify that error and clarify for others? This would not be detraction or slander, but filial charity. Fr Jason didn’t sin against the Holy Father by acknowledging his public failure to protect orthodoxy.
@@seanbrittmusic We must distinguish between a Pope’s Magisterial teachings (teachings given AS Pope) and his non-Magisterial teachings (teachings NOT given as Pope, i.e., given as a private theologian). With respect to his non-Magisterial teachings, any Pope is open to criticism. Eg., Pope John XXII erred (and gravely so) on a particular theological point in some of his homilies, and he was justly corrected by theologians for doing so. With respect to a Pope’s MAGISTERIAL teachings, however, we are on sacred ground (even if these teachings are NOT infallible, as, in fact, is USUALLY the case with Papal Magisterial teachings). With THESE teachings, there must be an attitude of TRUST, DOCILITY, and ASSENT/OBEDIENCE, born out of Faith in Jesus Christ who gave us the Papacy. If we approach the Papal Magisterial teachings in this way, including those of Pope Francis, most, if not all, difficulties in interpreting them will disappear. Further, the Church has ALWAYS condemned public dissent against these Magisterial teachings, even severely so. Constantinople IV excommunicated the PATRIARCHS, Photius and Diascorus (not mere Bishops or even Cardinals, but PATRIARCHS of Major Sees, i.e., men with otherwise GREAT authority in the Church!), for daring to accuse the Popes of their respective days of heresy IN THEIR PAPAL MAGISTERIUM. AND, that same Council (in Canon 21) condemned ALL who follow in their footsteps (!) Closer to our day, the great symbol of tradition, Pope St. Pius X, in “Praestantia Scripturae”, declared that public dissent against even non-infallible Papal teachings is a GRAVE sin (!) For, such dissent, says Pius X, proceeds from pride and causes scandal in the Church. (as such, it disrupts the unity of the Church). Other Popes, including Leo XIII, Pope St. Paul VI, and Pope St. John Paul II, have also condemned public dissent. The only exception to NOT giving assent to a non-infallible Papal Magisterial teaching is for a TRAINED theologian who STRIVES to reconcile a given teaching with other teachings, but, even after CONSULTING with others, is unable to do so. In that RARE case, such a theologian may WITHHOLD assent from a given non-infallible teaching (note, this “withholding of assent” is not the same as “dissent”), and, even then, he must do it in PRIVATE, not public (for the sake of the unity of the Church and, besides, the Church is probably correct anyway!) Compare these directives from the Church to today's situation in which many folks IMMEDIATELY and PUBLICLY oppose MAGISTERIAL teachings of the Roman Pontiff of our day! It is TRULY scandalous, truly so (for doing so is, objectively speaking, GRAVE sin, according to Pius X and, should there be the accusation of heresy given to the Papal Magisterium, Constantinople IV itself). See the 1990 CDF doc (by Ratzinger, approved by JPII), “Donum Veritatis”, for more details on this. That document explicitly says that, though some may think that it is there public duty to dissent publicly, it actually is NOT (rather, it is their duty to TRUST the Church, seek IN PRIVATE for clarification or, if necessary, correction, trusting that, if the truth is really at stake, it will win out...then they must...WAIT IN SILENCE! For there is only ONE Magisterium, not multiple, in the Church, and we cannot have everyone running around dissenting against the HIGHEST visible authority in the Church! We have a name for that: "Protestantism"!) Again, this simply reiterates what the Church through Pius X and others has always taught on this matter. It is not necessarily wrong to say that a Pope could do MORE to protect orthodoxy, for that would be a criticism of his prudential governing or personal judgments and ACTIONS. This would be akin to St. Paul's correction of St. Peter in Antioch as noted in the Letter to the Galatians: St. Paul was corrected the ACTIONS, not the teachings, of St. Peter. Other Saints, eg., St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Norbert, have acted similarly in correction the ACTIONS of the Popes of their days. However, even here, one must be careful and cautious both in concluding this (as there may be lots of relevant details of which one may not be aware) as well as in the MANNER in which one offers such criticism, i.e., it must be done, as Aquinas teaches, with the respect due to the Office. But, that is very different than actually accusing the Pope of grave error in his *teachings* , especially in his MAGISTERIAL teachings (which is what Bishop Strickland has done, and Fr. Jason sure seems to back Bishop Strickland up on this by giving his *unqualified* support to Bishop Strickland’s opposition to the Holy Father here). Peace.
Great, urgent words of truth! The plain fact is that if any Priest or Bishop does not speak up and stand for the Truth, they condemn themselves to Hell along with all those following them. The suffering of such clergy will be great in Hell. Our Lady warned at Garabandal, "many Priests and Bishops are on the way to perdition and taking many souls with them". Bishop Strickland has taken the right action to save his own soul and those of countless others.
"schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Canon Law 751
100%
Oh yes, let’s go against the Petrine magisterium. Forget CCC 892.
Same as Martin Luther.
Do you think the Pope can ever teach heresy (please carefully consider history before answering)
Read canon law before asking that question
This rot will only worsen.
@@alphabeta8284 Not in his Magisterium.
I agree, 100% on what father has just said. As a Canadian, we could use more priest like him. I’m not a Byzantine catholic, but I have friends who are and there’s a possibility that father Charron is from a distant branch of my family. All the same. God bless and God bless Bishop Strickland.
Fr Jason is speaking heresies. According to the 8th ecumenical council, no one can judge the first see. You can not publicly speak against the papacy. The pope can not teach heresy, and fr jason is implying that the pope is teaching heresy.
Those who claim Pope Francis teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture! I challenge this Priest to a public debate regarding the deuterocanonical of Pope Francis as Biblical or not! As lies were told of Jesus Christ at His trial, so too even now of Pope Francis by modern day elders! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Most Orthodox and Traditionlist get their Church teaching from youtubers and influencers than actually reading the Catechism and Cannon Law themselves. it's very frustrating to see a group that tradition and doctrine but dont even know what the traditions are themselves other than word of mouth of schismatics.
Amen, brother. Many bishops and preists are ignorant of teaching. This priest needs to be disciplined by his bishop.
The faithful will follow the faithful Shepherds of the Gospel.
And THE Shepherd is the Successor of Peter-- the TRUE faithful listen to HIS voice, not the voice of ANYONE else (whether priest, bishop, Cardinal, or even Patriarch) who contradicts THAT voice of PETER (for the voice of PETER, i.e., the Pope in His MAGISTERIUM, is the voice of CHRIST).
Yes definitely, but remember Saint Peter needed to be corrected too .
@@jmjorapronobis1328 St. Peter was corrected for his ACTIONS, not his teachings. Huge difference: the Church is unified in the faith TAUGHT by Peter and his Successors, NOT their actions. Peace.
In union with the bishop of rome. You have no pope you have no church.
@jmjorapronobis1328 also, he wasn't correcting him publicly for the world to see. Paul did not go to each church calling Peter a heretic. He privately admonished peter.
Considering where so many Latin Rite “leaders” are taking the Church, I think it’s time for an Eastern Rite pope.
Fr. Charron, the best of the best!!!
@@twright7299 study the 8th ecumenical council.
Bishop Strictkand said Pope Francis does not teach the Catholic faith. If he’s correct, is it possible the Church got papal infallibility wrong and the Orthodox are correct? They believe he’s the first amongst equals but also don’t think it’s impossible for a Patriarch or Bishop to fall into heresy.
No. Papal infallibility comes in very special circumstances: namely ex-Cathedra declarations on faith and morals. If the Pope is not making such declarations (e.g., spoken answers in informal interviews, or vague documents crafted by Cardinal Fernandez with the Pope's signature, or comments on things that don't pertain faith and morals) the Pope is not guaranteed to be infallible. The Pope can say "it is raining" and be wrong about it.
In other words, the Pope can simply choose not to teach the Faith by teaching falsehoods in his informal magisterium, and by not teaching anything infallibly ex-Cathedra. Moreover, if the Pope attempts to formally teach something heretical on matters of faith and morals, it is not that the Pope is not infallible anymore; it Is that the man making such declarations has apostatized and he is not the Pope anymore.
Bishop Strickland (not Barron) has never questioned the Pope's status as the Pope, nor his authority to teach infallibly ex-Cathedra.
Let's not forget that the Papal infallibility is not the only aspect on which the Orthodox are wrong. Papal infallibility wasn't formally taught until the Vatican I Council, which was centuries after the Orthodox went into schism.
@ As a Catholic, I find that to be a cop out answer, almost a way to justify major errors like “all religions are paths to God,” without holding him accountable. I think Francis is the Pope, I’m not arguing that. I can not ignore Pope Benedict writing the East should not be forced to accept anything more than they did in the first millenia. What did they accept then? That along with the Bishop of Rome document that recently came out makes me wonder if the East is correct: He is the first amongst equals, but can make mistakes like any other Bishop. I think the West is much more charitable and at least considers the East valid Churches with valid sacraments unlike the East. It’s a very nerve racking topic as you can see the importance of the Pope in the first ecumenical councils but papal infallibility isn’t taught until Vatican 1. Both sides have valid arguments.
@@cfban The Orthodox went into schism by rejecting changes in faith made by the church in the West (who did not use Papal Authority like they had in the 2nd millennium according to the Catholic Church), how does that make sense to you?
@@danman101stefan the Latin Church correctly added the Filioque in the VI century, and it wasn't a problem. Centuries later the Greeks retroactively raised a fuss about it as an excuse to break away for political reasons (even though they still wanted the Latins to help against the Jihadis...). The schism was resolved in Florence in the XV century, and Constantinople and the Emperor Constantine XI returned to the Church. After the fall of Constantinople, the Ottoman Sultan appointed a puppet named Gennadius Scholarius as the Greek Patriarch and made him break Communion again.
So yeah, revisionist "Orthodox" history won't fly here.
@@cfban I think they could get over the Filioque as there’s evidence they accepted the West saying it and in reality doesn’t change our belief in the Trinity. The issue was the authority of the Pope and 4 Patriarchs disagreed with Rome. Here you have a Bishop respected by everyone saying the Pope does not teach the Catholic faith. If he does not, the Orthodox position seems legitimate: He is the Patriarch of Rome with Apostolic succession, first amongst equals but not infallible. You yourself said papal infallibility wasn’t formally decried until Vatican 1.
Thank you
For what being a schismatic. No one judges the first see. You can not publicly speak out against the pope. The is cannon according to the 8th ecumenical council.
Praise be to God!
Good for Fr Jason! I couldn’t agree more. Pray for Francis
He, and Bishop Strickland, are in violation of Canon Law, and authentic Church Tradition and teaching, by encouraging rebellion against the MAGISTERIUM of a Roman Pontiff. This is not good, it is bad, very bad. Pray for Fr. Jason and Bishop Strickland.
No! According to the 8th ecumenical council, you can not publicly speak ill of the papacy. That's even when he's not teaching. You have a duty as catholics to understand the pope, and if you can not, you must find someone who does. If you can not find someone speak to your bishop and your bishop to the pope.
@ thank you for your reply. I will read the acts of the council. That said, given that a Pope (not necessarily Francis) or any Catholic might espouse error publicly, isn’t it obligatory on the faithful to publicly identify that error and clarify for others? This would not be detraction or slander, but filial charity. Fr Jason didn’t sin against the Holy Father by acknowledging his public failure to protect orthodoxy.
@@seanbrittmusic We must distinguish between a Pope’s Magisterial teachings (teachings given AS Pope) and his non-Magisterial teachings (teachings NOT given as Pope, i.e., given as a private theologian).
With respect to his non-Magisterial teachings, any Pope is open to criticism. Eg., Pope John XXII erred (and gravely so) on a particular theological point in some of his homilies, and he was justly corrected by theologians for doing so.
With respect to a Pope’s MAGISTERIAL teachings, however, we are on sacred ground (even if these teachings are NOT infallible, as, in fact, is USUALLY the case with Papal Magisterial teachings). With THESE teachings, there must be an attitude of TRUST, DOCILITY, and ASSENT/OBEDIENCE, born out of Faith in Jesus Christ who gave us the Papacy. If we approach the Papal Magisterial teachings in this way, including those of Pope Francis, most, if not all, difficulties in interpreting them will disappear.
Further, the Church has ALWAYS condemned public dissent against these Magisterial teachings, even severely so. Constantinople IV excommunicated the PATRIARCHS, Photius and Diascorus (not mere Bishops or even Cardinals, but PATRIARCHS of Major Sees, i.e., men with otherwise GREAT authority in the Church!), for daring to accuse the Popes of their respective days of heresy IN THEIR PAPAL MAGISTERIUM. AND, that same Council (in Canon 21) condemned ALL who follow in their footsteps (!) Closer to our day, the great symbol of tradition, Pope St. Pius X, in “Praestantia Scripturae”, declared that public dissent against even non-infallible Papal teachings is a GRAVE sin (!) For, such dissent, says Pius X, proceeds from pride and causes scandal in the Church. (as such, it disrupts the unity of the Church). Other Popes, including Leo XIII, Pope St. Paul VI, and Pope St. John Paul II, have also condemned public dissent.
The only exception to NOT giving assent to a non-infallible Papal Magisterial teaching is for a TRAINED theologian who STRIVES to reconcile a given teaching with other teachings, but, even after CONSULTING with others, is unable to do so. In that RARE case, such a theologian may WITHHOLD assent from a given non-infallible teaching (note, this “withholding of assent” is not the same as “dissent”), and, even then, he must do it in PRIVATE, not public (for the sake of the unity of the Church and, besides, the Church is probably correct anyway!) Compare these directives from the Church to today's situation in which many folks IMMEDIATELY and PUBLICLY oppose MAGISTERIAL teachings of the Roman Pontiff of our day! It is TRULY scandalous, truly so (for doing so is, objectively speaking, GRAVE sin, according to Pius X and, should there be the accusation of heresy given to the Papal Magisterium, Constantinople IV itself).
See the 1990 CDF doc (by Ratzinger, approved by JPII), “Donum Veritatis”, for more details on this. That document explicitly says that, though some may think that it is there public duty to dissent publicly, it actually is NOT (rather, it is their duty to TRUST the Church, seek IN PRIVATE for clarification or, if necessary, correction, trusting that, if the truth is really at stake, it will win out...then they must...WAIT IN SILENCE! For there is only ONE Magisterium, not multiple, in the Church, and we cannot have everyone running around dissenting against the HIGHEST visible authority in the Church! We have a name for that: "Protestantism"!) Again, this simply reiterates what the Church through Pius X and others has always taught on this matter.
It is not necessarily wrong to say that a Pope could do MORE to protect orthodoxy, for that would be a criticism of his prudential governing or personal judgments and ACTIONS. This would be akin to St. Paul's correction of St. Peter in Antioch as noted in the Letter to the Galatians: St. Paul was corrected the ACTIONS, not the teachings, of St. Peter. Other Saints, eg., St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Norbert, have acted similarly in correction the ACTIONS of the Popes of their days. However, even here, one must be careful and cautious both in concluding this (as there may be lots of relevant details of which one may not be aware) as well as in the MANNER in which one offers such criticism, i.e., it must be done, as Aquinas teaches, with the respect due to the Office. But, that is very different than actually accusing the Pope of grave error in his *teachings* , especially in his MAGISTERIAL teachings (which is what Bishop Strickland has done, and Fr. Jason sure seems to back Bishop Strickland up on this by giving his *unqualified* support to Bishop Strickland’s opposition to the Holy Father here).
Peace.
Great, urgent words of truth!
The plain fact is that if any Priest or Bishop does not speak up and stand for the Truth, they condemn themselves to Hell along with all those following them. The suffering of such clergy will be great in Hell. Our Lady warned at Garabandal, "many Priests and Bishops are on the way to perdition and taking many souls with them". Bishop Strickland has taken the right action to save his own soul and those of countless others.
Martin Luther felt he had words of truth too.
No one judges the first see according to the 8th ecumenical council. You can not publicly speak Ill or against the bishop of rome.