Dr. Ed Peters: Rev. Sosa’s remarks on the devil warrant official response (August 22, 2019)
The hypocrisy here is just stunning. Dr. Ed Peters, who has repeatedly publicly asserted, promoted, and taught heresy, is suggesting that the Church investigate and possibly take official action against Rev. Sosas for his remarks on the devil.
I’ve looked over Sosas’ remarks. He may be right that the term “the devil” and, I would add similar terms, such as “satanic” or “diabolical” can be used as references to non-personal evil in the world and among fallen human persons. But his claims that the devil is “not a personal reality” are irreconcilable with dogma. If there is no devil, are there other fallen angels? But by definition, Satan is the first angel who fell, thereby leading others by example to fall. If there are no fallen angels, are there holy angels? If not, then who gave the Annunciation to Mary? If so, then how is it that none of them can or have fallen? Good questions, but in any case, his public assertions that the devil does not exist is a clear heresy.
So I’m not disagreeing with Peters on that point. My concern is that Dr. Ed Peters has publicly asserted, promoted, and taught several grave heresies, as proven by my past posts on this topic. The problem here is that, once a person becomes an acknowledged leader in the conservative Catholic subculture, he or she can openly teach heresy, and not a single fellow conservative leader or media outlet will object. And yet, at the same time, many conservative leaders and outlets are accusing the Pope of heresy.
Heresies asserted publicly by Dr. Ed Peters:
* His heresy on the ordinary Papal Magisterium – that the Pope cannot teach, by his own authority, non-infallibly unless the other Bishops teach the same. More on that error. Peters’ teaching contradicts the dogma of three ecumenical councils: Florence (D-H, 1307); Vatican I (D-H, 3064), and Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 22 and 25).
* He rejects a dogma of the Council of Trent on marriage – that a person who is married ratum tantum can, by their own decision and initiative, dissolve that non-consummated marriage by making a permanent profession of religious vows.
* His heresy against the immunity from error and never-failing faith of the Pope – claiming that a Pope can teach or commit heresy, in contradiction to the dogma of Vatican I and of the ordinary universal magisterium. Read the many magisterial teachings Peters is contradicting on this point here
* Peters’ grave error on the Baptism of desire is injurious to souls and contrary to magisterial teaching, but may or may not rise to the level of heresy.
* His approval for unnatural acts as marital foreplay contradicts the teaching of Saint Alphonsus Liguori very directly, and is incompatible with many different magisterial teachings.
* This grave error on the abuse crisis is not heresy, but is gravely harmful to the Church in other ways.
So it is just a type of theological theater of the absurd for Dr. Peters to be calling out other Catholic leaders for a plank in their eye (or, in other blog posts of his, a speck), when he has several planks in his own eyes.
Ronald L Conte Jr