Replies

As a matter of fact I have read commentaries on Galatians 2:11:

Dhouay Rheims (Challoner):

The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts; but this, in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul's reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for in such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior.

and Catholic Encyclopedia:

Here St. Peter was found fault with probably by the Greek converts. He did not withdraw on account of bodily fear, says St. John Chrystostom; but as his special mission was at this time to the Jews, he was afraid of shocking them who were still weak in the Faith. His usual manner of acting, to which he was led by his vision many years previously, shows that his exceptional withdrawal was not due to any error of doctrine.

And Haydock:

Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of St. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine....After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins.

Imprudence and venial sin at best, not heresy. Francis' documents don't just contain errors of "imprudence". Francis has not merely "sinned" (as all popes and Catholics do).

I would appreciate it if you would stop saying that I call St Bellarmine a hypocrite. You keep using his "licit to resist" quote in the same way you use Galatians 2:11 to support your position: in error. If you'd like, I can prove that too.

Imprudence and venial sin at best, not heresy. Francis' documents don't just contain errors of "imprudence". Francis has not merely "sinned" (as all popes and Catholics do).

But neither has Francis been formally denounced as a heretic. Until he is, we are only at liberty to regard him as being gravely in error---tainted by leftist thought and desperate to pander to the modernists.

I'm merely sharing what I perceive, pius. And if you feel you can prove your point, then please do. But I don't suppose you, me, or anyone else can change sacred Scripture or the writings of Church Doctors.