Pope Francis and Kenneth Copeland

This is something I’ve heard nothing about from Catholics so I thought I would hear your perspective on it.

I was always under the impression that Catholics looked at Kenneth Copeland as a heretic (I do) because of his beliefs in prosperity theology, humans being little gods, Jesus burning in hell, etc…

So how do you feel about Pope Francis sending a video to his pastor’s conference? He certainly seems to view Copeland as a Christian, asking him to pray for him and saying they are all doing a good thing by attending this convention, even going as far as to call them brothers. After the video they all pray in tongues for him.

Of course, what followed was Copeland and some of his associates being invited to the Vatican to meet with the Pope personally.

Needless to say, I found this very disturbing. I once considered becoming Catholic, but this really left a bad taste in my mouth. I couldn’t imagine any of Francis’ predecessors doing this. What are your thoughts?

I am not aware that Kenneth Copeland was ever a Catholic. Only a Catholic can be a heretic vis-à-vis the Catholic Church.

Non-Catholics can certainly teach ideas and doctrines that are not authentic and heretical. But they are not heretics. A heretic is a person who is a member of the Church and teaches false doctrine and fails to be corrected, perhaps to the point of leaving the Church.

Not at all familiar with what he teaches.

I suggest you read the Vatican II documents on ecumenism, as well as John Paul the Great’s Dominus Jesus and Ut Unum Sint.

I will ask you though, how do we accomplish Christ’s prayer that we all are one, if we do not talk to others, do not reach out? Hmmm…

If he’s baptized, he IS a Christian.

Of course we are brothers will all the baptized.

Isn’t that great?

I think you misunderstand ecumenism.

Would you just have Catholcs in a box ignoring the rest of the world? THAT is a false Gospel. We are called to go to the ends of the world proclaiming the gospel, and today we also have the mission of reuniting a scattered flock.

Who else would be the right person to take on that mission in all earnestness but the Shepherd himself? The Pope.

I have no idea what you find disturbing.

1 Like

I wouldn’t make this into a “bad Francis” issue. I don’t know that any previous Pope has met with Copeland, but the saintly John Paul II was heavily criticized for meeting (and celebrating) with representatives of other religions entirely multiple times, and Pope Benedict followed right in his footsteps. In general, the recent Popes have taken the approach of emphasizing commonalities rather than disagreeements when dealing with other groups of believers, whether Christian or otherwise. And this approach has borne some fruit – we have an agreement with (some) Lutherans over the doctrine of justification, one of the major Reformation issues, and even more remarkably we have intercommunion again with some of the earliest Churches to depart from the Catholic communion, after dialogue revealed that our supposed Christological disagreement was actually a matter of insisting on different terminology to defend the same truth.

I’m sure that if it became a serious issue, Pope Francis would condemn the aberrations of Copeland’s theology – he certainly doesn’t seem the type to agree with a teaching that makes physical health and material wealth the hallmarks of a faithful Christian – but that doesn’t mean he needs to reject personal contact with the man or support for goals we agree with.

Usagi

John Paul the Great also visited prison and met with (and forgave) the Muslim terrorist who SHOT HIM.

God works in mysterious ways. Trust the Holy Spirit. HE has looked after the Catholic Church for over 2,000 years, HE won’t quit now !! Please continue your interest in the Catholic Faith, it is the TRUE Church of Jesus Christ. Where else would you go?? God Bless, Memaw

**What would Christ do?

Answer that, and that is what the Pope should do.

#VicarofChrist**

That’s incorrect.

“*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”

That doesn’t mean only a person who is Catholic can be in heresy. EVERYONE (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) need to believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

Once a person is validly baptised…regarless of who did it, (Catholic or non Catholic) THEN that baptised person can become a heretic based on what they believe.

Here’s a list of the [FONT=Arial]Great Heresies [/FONT]in history

Notice Protestantism is there on the list

1ke is correct. You may be referring to the difference between “formal” and “material” heretic, but the fact is that the Church does not hold non-Catholics (who were born into those communities) accountable for all the teachings of the Faith if they had not learned them to begin with. While their beliefs may be heretical, they themselves cannot be charged with separation (CCC 817-818). That’s part of why we must reach out and bring people to the Fullness of Truth…and teach them what that truth is.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#818

The point I was responding to was “heresy”

I was disagreeing with the statement only a Catholic can be guilty of heresy. My point was it’s any “baptised” person regardless of stripe can be a heretic. iow, It’s what happens "post" baptism. Baptism is the key.

Here’s what I said #7

I quoted the definition from the CCC on heresy [FONT=Arial]2089[/FONT], then I said

“Once a person is validly baptised…regarless of who did it, (Catholic or non Catholic) THEN that baptised person can become a heretic based on what they believe”

That’s an accurate statement.

Keneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Rod Parsley, Creflo Dollar et al are prosperity gospel types. Their brand of health and wealth lies came from Oral Roberts, who learned it from an evangelist by the name of Keneth Hagin. He was a pentecostal evangelist who fathered the name it-claim it type of prosperity gospel. They are responsible for leading many souls astray with false, non biblical teachings. That Pope Francis gave credability to this group through his friendship with Tony Palmer, and allowed a meeting at the Vatican I find that decision troubling. This entire movement is summed up quite nicely in 1st and 2nd Timothy.

Well…exactly how do we think we can evangelize people who are in error, who name themselves Christians if you never dialog with them? :rolleyes:

Nowhere does His Holiness infer that he agrees with all they teach and we all know that the fullness of truth subsists in our Catholic faith, so if it gets just one of them or their adherents to dig deeper and convert then it was a good effort.

Heck…the fundamentalists despise all those guys as well as us Catholics. :shrug:

Share the faith people …sow the seed so that it bears fruit, and as St. Pope John Paul the Great said, “Be not afraid.”

No you are not because I never said that. I very specifically said only a Catholic can be a heretic vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.

I then stated that non-Catholics can teach heretical things but are not heretics.

Within their own community, yes. Within someone else’s, no. One cannot be a heretic in a religion one does not belong to.

Heresy, yes. Heretic, no.

I don’t think you understand the difference between a formal and material heretic. One cannot be a heretic unless one is a Catholic. The Church herself does not call non-Catholic Christians heretics, and neither should we. Nor can you be tried for heresy unless you ARE a Catholic.

But that wasn’t what was being discussed. 1ke made a statement regarding heresy vis-à-vis the Catholic Church.

"Only a Catholic can be a heretic vis-à-vis the Catholic Church. "

This is a true and correct statement (see the CCC reference provided earlier, as well as 1ke’s explanation in the immediately preceding post).

So how do you feel about Pope Francis sending a video to his pastor’s conference?

I think it’s an awesome example of true ecumenism, using our similarities and points of agreement to foster dialog between Christians and to open the door to honest communication in the search for Truth. We can’t convert people to Christ’s Church by not reaching out to them. If you are going to plant a seed in a garden, you have to walk to the garden. The seed won’t walk there by itself.

And I said that is wrong. I said anyone who is **baptised **can be a heretic.

here is what CA says on the matter (all emphasis mine)

“To commit heresy, [FONT=Comic Sans MS]one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic. [/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]A person must be baptized to commit heresy[/FONT]. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that [FONT=Comic Sans MS]do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism. [/FONT]
Finally,[FONT=Comic Sans MS] the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary). “ [/FONT]Great Heresies

And you will recall I quoted the CCC
2089"*[FONT=Arial]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;[/FONT]

As you can see from the above quote, your view is incorrect

Until I find out that someone is actually innocently ignorant of some divine truth that must be believed, I don’t automatically presume that person is ignorant of such truths.

As for the distinctions between Material vs Formal heresy

“The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or *material *sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.”
ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

It does NOT say or even hint that only Catholics can be heretics or that non Catholics CAN’T be heretics

I answered that above

, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same

Actually, here the Catechism is quoting the code of canon law. Specifically, canon 751.

Let me quote another canon:

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

One cannot be a heretic vis-à-vis the Catholic Church unless one is a Catholic. Because one cannot be tried for and convicted of heresy unless one is a Catholic. Because ecclesial law applies only to Catholics.

No you didn’t. You addressed your own side-topic, as opposed to the one being discussed (vis-à-vis the Catholic Church).

Until I find out that someone is actually innocently ignorant…

You might not presume someone is innocent until you “find them” as such, but that’s not a Catholic position to take. Catholics (we, lay folk) are not to presume the guilt of others.

You will recall that I also cited the Catechism, which puts the text you cited into context…applying to Catholics who have been baptized or received into the Catholic faith…just like Canon Law says (which 1ke was generous enough to provide). As for non-Catholics, the Church does not brand them with the guilt [of heresy] those who were born into [non-Catholic] communities.

CCC 817-818
Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries **much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church **- for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The **ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body **- here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "**However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . **All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
(emphasis mine, bracketed text within quote is exactly as it appears in the Catechism)

I’ll restate

This is NOT about being Catholic. It’s about whether one is baptised or not. Therefore a baptised protestant can be a heretic just as a Catholic can be a heretic.

“To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.
A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.
Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary). “ From Great Heresies ** **

That’s not the issue. The statement was made, only Catholics can commit heresy. That’s incorrect

#818 is NOT an absolute, no matter the situation. Once a person knows, and is no longer innocently ignorant of truth they should know, presuming one is innocently ignorant, and they refuse to change, **THEN **they are culpable for what they continue in.

"in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.” iow they can’t stay as they are. iow one can’t stay in any of the [FONT=Arial]Great Heresies or minor heresies for that matter as well. They need to change.[/FONT]

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.