In that context, I've always been of the view that it's a bad look for a convert, a few years after becoming Catholic, to decide the Holy Father has things all wrong. So I was happy to see Edward Feser's latest blog post:
[I]t is true that a pope can fall into doctrinal error, even material heresy, when not speaking ex cathedra. However, whether and how a pope can be charged with formal heresy, 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.Feser explains in some detail parts of the letter he simply sees as "rash", and he goes on to question what the letter adds that hasn't already been said, several times, when we already know Francis will simply ignore it. The solution he proposes is
Suppose that the open letter had alleged, not that the pope is guilty of the canonical delict of heresy, but rather that the pope’s words and actions have, even if inadvertently, encouraged doctrinal error, or perhaps that the pope has been negligent in his duty to uphold sound doctrine. It would be much harder to defend the pope against these milder charges, as the evidence adduced in the open letter clearly shows. These milder charges also would not raise the question of the loss of the papal office, with all of its unresolved canonical and theological difficulties and horrific practical implications.Although a still easier way to resolve the issue, which I think Feser understands accurately here, is to recognize that popes don't live forever, and inevitably there will be a conclave. My regular correspondent has an interesting take on how this applies to Anglicanorum coetibus:
But the real appeal, reconciling communities to the inevitable compromise with their particular ideas of what constituted the essence of "Anglicanism," was meant to be the end of the endless bickering within the Anglican Communion, the imposition of authority and discipline. It is unsurprising that in North America and Australia the biggest uptake was among "continuing" parishes which had already given up on Canterbury's brand of leadership. The UK had "flying bishops" and a parallel "non serviam" structure within the official CofE that provided most of the OOLW incomers.But at the moment the Church does not look like a very convincing solution to primarily institutional problems. When Fr Aidan Nichols, an early spokesperson for the Anglican Use Society, signs a letter accusing the Pope of heresy, what is an inquiring congregation supposed to think? Even a group concerned about their future in the Anglican Catholic Church Network of America or whatever may not see the barque of Peter as significantly less leaky right now. The AC blog is all but silent. I think the mood is dark. Meanwhile new Ordinariate attendees are mostly conservative lifelong Catholics who aren't quite ready for Latin but want to pretend they are back at St Francis Academy with Hayley Mills. The whole thing just diverts needed resources, IMHO.
