Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the signatories of the so-called “Four Cardinals Letter,” gave an interview to Catholic Action in which he explained the reasons behind the letter and why it was time to take the step of releasing it to the public. I believe this interview is a major step in the direction of an official ecclesiastical action to oppose the errors of Pope Francis.
I had considered asking for permission to reprint the entire interview, but I decided that it would be of greater value to excerpt the sections I found most critical. My comments follow His Eminence’s:
CA: So you are saying that you are publishing a letter that you sent to the Pope privately. This is extraordinary. Isn’t this action objectionable from a Christian point of view? Our Lord said in the Gospel of Matthew (18:15) that if we have a problem with a brother, we are supposed to talk with him privately, one-on-one, not publicly.
In the same portion of Sacred Scripture to which you refer, Our Lord also said that, after addressing a difficulty to a brother, individually and together with others, without it being resolved, then, for the good of the Church the matter is to be presented to the whole Church. This is precisely what we are doing.
There have been many other statements of concern regarding Amoris Laetitia, all of which have not received an official response from the Pope or his representatives. Therefore, in order to look for clarity on these matters, three other Cardinals and I used the formality of presenting fundamental questions directly to the Holy Father and to the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. No response has been given to these questions either. Therefore, in making public our questions or dubia, we are being faithful to Christ’s mandate to first talk with a person privately, then in a small group, and finally, taking the matter to the Church as a whole.
CA: As you say, Amoris Laetitia has been the subject of much discussion, and even criticism. For example, you have famously stated that you believe it is not a Magisterial document. Could you explain how your current questions to the Holy Father relate to these other analyses of the Apostolic Exhortation?
To understand the present publication, we need to consider what has led up to it.
Just after his election, in his first Sunday Angelus message, Pope Francis praised Cardinal Walter Kasper’s understanding of mercy, which is a fundamental theme in Amoris Laetitia. Only a few months later, the Vatican announced an Extraordinary Synod about Marriage and Family for October 2014.
In preparation for the Synod, I, along with four other Cardinals, an Archbishop, and three theologians, published a book, Remaining in the Truth of Christ. As a member of the Synod, I noted that the mid-term report lacked a solid foundation in Sacred Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. Later, I agreed with other Cardinals that there was manipulation in the running of the Synod itself, and in the writing of the final report of the Synod.
Prior to the 2015 Synod, to which I was not invited, eleven Cardinals contributed to a book about marriage and the family. Although I did not contribute to this book, I read it with great interest. Also prior to the 2015 Ordinary Synod on the Family, over 790,000 Catholics signed a “Filial Appeal” to Pope Francis about the future of the family, asking him to say “a clarifying word” to dissipate the “widespread confusion” about Church teaching. Along with other Cardinals, I was a signatory. During the 2015 session of the Synod, thirteen Cardinal-participants signed a letter to the Pope indicating their concern about the manipulation of the process of the Synod.
In April 2016, Pope Francis published Amoris Laetitia as the fruit of the 2014 and 2015 sessions of the Synod of Bishops. In the summer of 2016, forty-five academics, including some prelates, wrote to the Holy Father and to the College of Cardinals, asking the Pope to repudiate a list of erroneous propositions that can be drawn from portions of Amoris Laetitia. This received no public response.
On 29 August, 2016, I joined many bishops, priests, and lay faithful in signing a Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s Teaching on Marriage and to Her Uninterrupted Discipline. This also has received no public response.
My position is that Amoris Laetitia is not Magisterial because it contains serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin. A document with these defects cannot be part of the Church’s perennial teaching. Because that is the case, the Church needs absolute clarity regarding what Pope Francis is teaching and encouraging.
CA: Some Catholics may be concerned that your current publication is an act of disloyalty.
I, together with the other three Cardinals, are striving to be loyal to the Holy Father by being loyal to Christ above all. By making public our plea for clarity of doctrine and pastoral practice, we are hoping to make this a discussion for all Catholics, especially our fellow bishops. Every baptized person should be concerned about doctrine and moral practices regarding the Holy Eucharist and Holy Matrimony, and about how we are to identify good and evil actions. These matters affect all of us.
Rather than being a matter of disloyalty to the Pope, our action is deeply loyal to everything that the Pope represents and is obliged to defend in his official capacity. Pope Francis has called for candid speech in the Church a number of times, and has asked members of the hierarchy for openness and accountability. We are being candid, with the fullest respect for the office of the Holy Father, and exercising, according to the light of our consciences, the openness and accountability which the Church has the right to expect of us.
This is my duty as a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. I was not created a Cardinal in order to receive an honorary position. Rather, Pope Benedict XVI made me a Cardinal to assist him and his successors in governing the Church and teaching the Faith. All Cardinals have the duty of working closely with the Pope for the good of souls, and this is precisely what I am doing by raising questions of grave importance regarding faith and morals. I would not be fulfilling my duty as a cardinal, and therefore as counselor to the Pope, if I remained silent on an issue of such serious matter.
CA: If I may, I would like to continue this line of thought. It is unclear how your publication is being docile to the Pope’s desire for greater pastoral sensitivity and creativeness in the Church. Hasn’t the Pope indicated his position in a letter to the Argentine Bishops? Other Cardinals have said that the proper way to read Amoris Laetitia is that it allows divorced-and-remarried couples to receive communion in certain circumstances. In that light, one could argue that your document is creating more confusion.
First, a point of clarification. The issue is not about divorced and remarried couples receiving Holy Communion. It is about sexually active but not validly married couples receiving Holy Communion. When a couple obtains a civil divorce and a canonical declaration that they were never validly married, then they are free to marry in the Church and receive Holy Communion, when they are properly disposed to receive. The Kasper proposal is to allow a person to receive Holy Communion when he or she has validly pronounced marriage vows but is no longer living with his or her spouse and now lives with another person with whom he or she is sexually active. In reality, this proposal opens the door for anyone committing any sin to receive Holy Communion without repenting of the sin.
I would also like to point out that only the first of our questions to the Holy Father focuses on Holy Matrimony and the Holy Eucharist. Questions two, three, and four are about fundamental issues regarding the moral life: whether intrinsically evil acts exist, whether a person who habitually commits grave evil is in a state of “grave sin”, and whether a grave sin can ever become a good choice because of circumstances or intentions.
It is true that the Holy Father wrote a letter to the Argentinian Bishops, and that some Cardinals have proposed the interpretations of Amoris Laetitia that you have mentioned. However, the Holy Father himself has not clarified some of the “knotty” issues. It would contradict the Faith if any Catholic, including the Pope, said that a person can receive Holy Communion without repenting of grave sin, or that living in a marital way with someone who is not his or her spouse is not a state of grave sin, or that there is no such thing as an act that is always and everywhere evil and can send a person to perdition. Thus, I join my brother Cardinals in making a plea for an unmistakable clarification from Pope Francis himself. His voice, the voice of the Successor of Saint Peter, can dispel any questions about the issue.
There are always complaints that what the bishops and cardinals are doing is too little or too late. Nevertheless, I think this is an incredibly important development. Recall that the Church moves far more slowly than we are accustomed to in the information age where everything is so nearly instantaneous. Amoris Laetitia was only promulgated in April of this year. We are seven months into the fallout, and the steps being taken here are significant. Don’t let the gentleness of the language fool you.
A few thoughts:
- Cardinal Burke is documenting the obstinacy of Pope Francis in terms of his refusal to address “serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin.” He gave all the same examples I did yesterday, and added the Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s Teaching on Marriage and to Her Uninterrupted Discipline.
- He is making clear that this request for clarification follows a formal process: “There have been many other statements of concern regarding Amoris Laetitia, all of which have not received an official response from the Pope or his representatives. Therefore, in order to look for clarity on these matters, three other Cardinals and I used the formality of presenting fundamental questions directly to the Holy Father and to the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.”
- He has outlined the history of Amoris Laetitia, has associated Francis directly with Kasper, has re-visted the deeply troubling mid-term relatio from the 2014 synod, has even mentioned his own removal from the synod process itself after 2014.
- He has positioned the adversarial relationship between the four cardinals and Pope Francis in relation to the fixed point of Christ and His teaching. “I, together with the other three Cardinals, are striving to be loyal to the Holy Father by being loyal to Christ above all. ” and “Rather than being a matter of disloyalty to the Pope, our action is deeply loyal to everything that the Pope represents and is obliged to defend in his official capacity.” He is signalling that the pope has a moral duty to defend Church teaching, not to innovate or depart from it.
- He is indicating that he and the other three cardinals are now performing their own duty, “which the Church has the right to expect of us.”
- While some dislike the word “clarification,” Burke and the cardinals (and other bishops) who stand with him are asking Francis to state clearly what he believes. “It would contradict the Faith if any Catholic, including the Pope, said that a person can receive Holy Communion without repenting of grave sin, or that living in a marital way with someone who is not his or her spouse is not a state of grave sin, or that there is no such thing as an act that is always and everywhere evil and can send a person to perdition.” This statement indicates that they know he has contradicted the Faith, and if he does not recant but rather affirms this, then he will officially stand in opposition to the Faith.
I submit to you that these statements are indicative of something momentous. This could well be the prelude to something unprecedented: the challenging of a sitting pope for the crime of manifest, obdurate heresy. Remember that the “manifest and obdurate” parts are necessary to establish. As Michael Davies wrote in his essay, A Heretical Pope?
If, per impossible, a pope became a formal heretic through pertinaciously denying a de fide doctrine, how would the faithful know that he had forfeited his office as he had ceased to be a Catholic? It must be remembered that no one in the Church, including a General Council, has the authority to judge the Popes. Reputable authorities teach that if a pope did pertinaciously deny a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, after this had been brought to his attention by responsible members of the hierarchy (just as St. Paul reproved St. Peter to his face), a General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope, as a notorious heretic, had ceased to be a Catholic and hence had ceased to be Pope. It is important to note that the Council would neither be judging nor deposing the Pope, since it would not possess the authority for such an act. It would simply be making a declaratory sentence, i.e. declaring to the Church what had already become manifest from the Pope’s own actions. This is the view taken in the classic manual on Canon Law by Father F.X. Wernz, Rector of the Gregorian University and Jesuit General from 1906 to 1914. This work was revised by Father P. Vidal and was last republished in 1952. It states clearly that an heretical Pope is not deposed in virtue of the sentence of the Council, but “the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity.“(7) Other authorities believe that such a declaration could come from the College of Cardinals or from a representative group of bishop, while others maintain that such a declaration would not be necessary. What all those who accept the hypothesis of an heretical pope are agreed upon is that for such a pope to forfeit the papacy his heresy would have to be “manifest”, as Saint Robert Bellarmine expressed it, that is notorious and public (notorium et palam divulgata).(8) A notorious offence can be defined as one for which the evidence is so certain that it can in no way be either hidden or excused.(9) A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.
Cardinals Burke, Caffara, Brandmüller, and Meisner — along with their other as-yet unnamed supporters among the bishops — are giving Francis a way out. They are bringing “to his attention” as “responsible members of the hierarchy (just as St. Paul reproved St. Peter to his face)” the errors which he has fomented. (Remember, John XXII repented of his error after being confronted.) This is no doubt not only for Francis’ good, but for the good of the countless souls who would be scandalized by any act of public deposition of a pope, and the massive schism that would at last break the Church apart on her many emergent fault lines. If Francis continues to refuse to address this, these Cardinals, along with any other orthodox prelates yet remaining in the Church, will have no choice but to take action. Anything less will destroy their credibility as apostolic successors and shake the faith of countless souls in the indefectibility of the Church.
As one high-ranking member of the clergy confided to me recently, “Francis is an eclipse of the sun of Catholic truth.” It is long past time for the sun to come out again.
What a great response. I vote we all co-opt it to use whenever someone who has fallen prey to pope worship accuses us of scandal or dissent. It’s going in my profile description, if nothing else.
On a different note, I find it highly ironic that the so-called Year of Mercy, which ends this Sunday, is now going to conclude with cardinals openly dissenting from the Supreme Pontiff, while said Supreme Pontiff in turn lambasts anyone who does not share his quasi-Marxist political philosophy and theology as “rigid” and whatever other insults he happens to think of on a given day, in addition to sending his de facto mouthpiece (Spadaro) to Twitter to inform us all that “The Pope has ‘clarified’. Those who don’t like what they hear pretend not to hear it!”
Does this not signify that Francis’s false idea of mercy is ephemeral and illusory?
As I said above, this is the key: “The Pope has clarified.” Spadaro has spoken for the Pope – there will be no other clarification. Francis told us Schoenborn (sp) spoke what Francis thought when he announced the exhortation. And Francis told us that the Argentinian bishops’ statement was the only interpretation. That’s the clarification.
The schism is almost de facto.
I’m already a deplorable; now I’m proudly ridged too.
If Pope Francis refuses to answer, what actions could the signatories of the Dubia take? He’s not manifestly a heretic if he doesn’t answer. He’s just silent. And his silence can’t imply anything in yes/no questions. Doesn’t Francis merely have to remain silent to protect his position?
Please don’t take this as an attack or challenge — I genuinely want to know, because I’m ignorant of this.
Related: is there any legal disciplinary action that Francis can take against these cardinals?
This is overall good news, but also sad news. Sad that out of 211 cardinals, only 4 signed this. But God bless those 4!
As St. Thomas More instructed the people at his trial of how silence is used, “silence gives consent.” That is how they know of Francis’ answer, by his silence
I have to say again – there is no procedure for this. Even the theologians like Bellarmine who speculated on it didn’t seem to think it could happen. So that has to be worked out.
But the way I see it is that they are asking Francis to reject the heresy that AL manifestly promotes. His refusal to do so means that he consents to this interpretation, and to the confusion and grave scandal it’s causing. Honorius was anathematized for failing to stop heresy. This is, at a minimum, on that level.
How exactly this might play out remains to be seen.
Well, Bellarmine and Suarez believed that a Pope is automatically excommunicated if he promotes heresy. Catejan and John of St. Thomas thought differently, in that they believed that a Council would need to be called in order to determine if a Pope has promoted heresy; then, the Pope would be given a chance to recant and repent of his heresy. If he does not recant, then he could be censured by the Council as a body (not individuals) telling Catholics not to follow the Pope. There isn’t really a set way to deal with a heretical Pope. The idea of calling a Council just makes sense to me. However, getting other Cardinals to commit to participating in such a Council could be problematic.
Article that explains more, from the Dominicans of Avrille website:
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/
Thank you for this article, Steve. It’s a sign of hope that Cardinal Burke and four others are trying to do something about this terrible situation. How far they will go to see it though is anyone’s guess at this point. I’ll offer prayers for Cardinal Burke and the three others.
I have feared that Bergoglio’s reign would be a period of ever-increasing chaos–i.e., success, from his point of view–to be followed by the election of one of his clones.
The four Cardinals are protecting the Church, and not just in the present moment. Should Bergoglio, rather than dying, be forced to slink back to Argentina, it seems inconceivable that the next conclave would turn right around and inflict one of the clones on the Church. And every Catholic would owe an incalculable debt to the four Cardinals.
Let’s be honest, Pope Francis’s Lutheran adventure alone is Honorious-worthy. The Cardinals are rightly choosing Amoris Laetitia from about two dozen manifest and grave heresies publicly promoted by Pope Francis. If he was a Pope of another era that wasn’t already so soaked in heresy, he would’ve been called out within three days of his election.
If he remains silent there is sufficient evidence of his support of heretical guidelines being issued for the implementation of Amoris Laetitia, such as in Argentia and even his own Diocese of Rome, furthermore he has made Schornborn the ‘official’ interpreter and he has been saying all along that anything goes.
Also, to remain silent in the face of such a public scandal is to fail in his office to confirm the brethren in a very public and notorious way, which is itself fostering heresy throughout the Church and is itself a crime.
The millstone around Pope Francis neck just got a lot tighter fitting. If he is in anyway concerned with salvation perhaps he should take the good cardinal’s proffer of mallet and chisel by affirming the Catholic Faith and answer the Dubia in accord with Catholic Doctrine and Sacred Scripture.
Furthermore, if he remains silent then he will offend several as of yet silent prelates and some of them will join with the others publically demanding an answer: Pope Francis is obligated by his office to confirm the Catholic Faith and answer the dubia submitted to him or to the proper office/s in the Vatican. If he refuses to answer then he is Manifestly Obdurate Contra Fide or at least Manifestly Obdurate in his allowance of Contra Fide teaching and practices to flourish. The faith has been contradicted by Amoris Laetitia and it’s many promoters who all have the Pope’s blessing in the actions and teachings.
Thank you Fr. RP for your insights.
We pray!
“Francis is an eclipse of the sun of Catholic truth.” A great and apt description. It certainly is time for the sun to reappear & I’m confident it will. The publication of this Dubia will make the difference and undoubtedly they have the support of other Cardinals for this way of doing things, also the fifty or so that support the SSPX. PF is bound to know of their opposition to his Marxist views & will be most unwilling to respond to the Dubia, but if he doesn’t then the Anathema must follow, or at least the instruction to Catholics to ignore PF as he is an antipope. Either way he loses and so does his entourage. We must be thankful for some real leadership at last & pray for a successful outcome.
In an update to their four cardinals story on Rorate, this was posted:
So yes, it appears that they are “more numerous” than it seems on the surface.
“Electors Remorse.”
Fr. Pio Pace also makes clear that Pope Francis has actually said that he would not answer. Is this true? Does Cardinal Burke KNOW, himself, that Francis has declined to answer? What about an answer from Cardinal Mueller? His position is tricky. As head of the CDF it’s HIS job to advise the Pope in these matters. He would show Francis where Francis’ teachings are in contradiction to past teachings (this is the test in these matters) and he would advise very serious thought – and clarification. Will Mueller’s head be next on the chopping block? Imagine his anguish to think that he may be powerless to stop Francis.
Now that I think about it, has not Francis said over and over that nothing has changed – that practice moves with the times but nothing changes…I believe in his mind there is no need to answer silly questions from Cardinals who are just not getting this. Kasper says the same thing over and over – nothing has changed – get over it!
Our Lady of Fatima please pray for Francis and convert him before he drags more souls to Hell with him.
“And the Pope made known to the Cardinals that HE WOULD NOT ANSWER THEM.”
That’s pride.
“It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave…”
Matthew 20:26-27
As I wrote elsewhere this is a major and decisive step in a multi-step process, there are only a couple of steps left in the process, what those steps will be is based on how Pope Francis responds. I am certain that the Cardinals have a time line that they are working with and multiple strategies in place to respond in whatever way is necessary.
They are signaling to all the Faithful that they have not been abandoned and that indeed they are willing to do what is necessary to bring and end to the current state of things.
Be assured this is an ecclesiastical earthquake in the making.
May the Lord Bless, Strengthen and Protect His Faithful in the Hierarchy and Laity so that they share in His Victory. Amen
A wonderful next step, if for no other reason than to strengthen their argument, would be for the four cardinals to do their best to try to convince the other cardinals who support them but do not wish to go public (as Rorate Caeli reported) to change their minds. Four cardinals can be dismissed by Francis, his cronies, and the head-in-the-sand media as outliers not worthy of serious discussion. The more we can get to publicly voice their concerns, the more difficult it is to ignore them.
AMEN AND ALLELUIA FR!!!!! Finally, they are dealing with him!! THANK YOU LORD JESUS!!!!
Well said Father. However, the answer that we can almost assuredly expect is that “pastors are required to discern” and therefore there is no “answer” because discernment cant be defined unless pastors are given strict rules and parameters from which to “discern”. We are very unlikely to get an answer from the Vatican on whether AL does or does not. And so the games will go on.
Its not that complicated. The way it was is the way it should be. And ignore Bergoglio and all his teaching as untrustworthy, like they did in the early Church – an antipope.
From a recent interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register:
Pentin: What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Cardinal Burke: Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
Pentin: In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
Cardinal Burke: What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
Pentin: If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
Cardinal Burke: It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.
—-
Sounds like they’re going to keep at it. God bless them.
I wish I could share your optimism, Father, but in the short run (i.e. this life) Burke and Co. (whom I applaud for their efforts) are not likely to accomplish much more than St. Athanasius did before his exile. We Trads get excited about these things because they’re what we reverence and admire; namely, men following the law of the Church to defend her infallible teaching. But for Francis and his ilk – to say nothing of a largely uninformed laity – how is such action perceived?
Pretty much like this:
Here we have poor humble Francis trying to extend an olive branch to those who have suffered a divorce but are trying to rebuild their lives, and along come the doctors of the law, trying to trip Francis up with their cleverly crafted questions just like the Pharisee did to Jesus.
To the legions of un- and ill-catechized this does little more than depict Francis as a sympathetic character. Meanwhile, he’ll refuse to answer them, but make a show of doing something by appointing an envoy to begin the process of dialoguing with his adversaries. And then, years.
I hope I’m wrong, and that this truly ignites a firestorm against him, but with all his people holding the levers of power, why should we ever expect the perpetrators to prosecute and convict themselves?
I’m removing my comment.
Don’t read Bergoglio: Just read his established predecessors.
Ridiculous comment on multiple levels.
How much longer does the correction process take? What is the next step after the Rome Life Forum?
Thousands of faithful clergy, professors, theologians, pro- family organizations, people in the pews, petitions have informed P. Francis of the heresy in the Vatican – to no avail. The avalanche of misinfo, heresy continues.
Rome conference blames Amoris Laetitia for dividing Church,
quietly undermining doctrine
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rome-conference-blames-amoris-laetitia-for-dividing-church-quietly-undermin
Rome Life Forum 2017: Complete texts of addresses – http://voiceofthefamily.com/rome-life-forum-2017-complete-texts-of-addresses/
The current situation has been likened to the Arian heresy !!
What is the timeline for correction of a heretical pope? It seems like it is long overdue.
As a follow-up to Steve’s point below that we are dealing with a situation for which no canonical protocol or procedure exists, having recently taken the time to read a number of books by prominent Catholic clergy written in the 19th and early 20th centuries, I can attest to Steve’s assertion. I have yet to come across any pre-Conciliar Catholic author who would even consider the possibility that the Supreme Pontiff could ever fall into error on a matter of faith and morals; rather, the various authors express absolute confidence that the Barque of Peter could never be co-opted by a man who so openly teaches heresy. So looking to the past, sadly, is not much help at this point.
We truly are in uncharted territory, ladies and gentlemen.
If I may ask for recommendations, what were your favorite two or three of those you read?
In no particular order:
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott;
The Facts about Luther by Msgr. Patrick F. O’Hare (N.B.: O’Hare, in my opinion, assumes that the pope, whomever he may be, can never fall into doctrinal error and uses that assumption in his argument against Luther’s rebellion);
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Fr. Michael Mueller (Not really related to the matter at hand, but it is by far the best book I have found on the Mass; even one who already thinks he knows a great deal about the meaning behind the different parts of the Latin Mass should be able to learn something valuable);
The Blessed Sacrament: Our Greatest Treasure also by Mueller (A great resource for learning just how pre-Conciliar priests spoke and taught about the Blessed Sacrament and the necessity of frequent reception, which would have not been a common practice in the 1860s when the book was written. Mueller, however, gives the advice that one should always take the advice of one’s confessor if one is in doubt about whether or not one is worthy of receiving the Eucharist; sadly, his advice can come across as naive these days when one cannot be certain in all cases that one’s confessor can actually be trusted as to whether or not a given action is a sin.)
All are still in print and published by TAN Books. Really, almost anything published by TAN is worthy of a read, although some books they publish written after 2008 (when they were bought by St. Benedict Press) tend to embrace a “conservative-nothing-is-wrong-at-all-with-the-Novus-Ordo-Church”approach.
If Francis ever declares “infallibly” anything against faith and morals, such as approval of adultery (“divorced and remarried”), then we will know that he was never a pope but an anti-pope.
Francis has very effectively blurred the distinction between his personal agenda, which is in fact the Modernist heresy, and what most of us would consider infallibility. Don’t forget most Catholics don’t know or care about all the legal mumbo-jumbo. They like what they hear and approve of the one telling them what they like to hear.
True about those with itching ears wanting Francis and his cabal telling them to keep sinning. However, there has been the debate if Francis is pope or not (anti-pope). If Francis tries to infallibly declare anything against unchangeable faith and morals, then that cannot be as a real pope is protected against error when making infallible declarations. Hence an error in that regard shows that he is not protected, and therefore not pope.
No, the Early Church does guide us. They revealed Honorius as an antipope, and as Burke said elsewhere, there have been 40 such antipopes in history. We pray, the bishops who are good will act. Christ will act too. One way or another, Fr Jorge is about to meet his Maker, and woe to him! AND we stay firmly in the Church until those hierarchs who are good declare him null and void, an antipope, either in the present, or it will occur at the Judgement Seat of Christ the Lord Himself!
Pope Paul IV (not the VI) declared in his Papal Bull, Ex Cum Officio (in which he wrote he taught infallibly as a matter of Faith and Morals- Ex Cathedra), that a sitting pope can depose himself by remaining in obstinate public heresy, and cease to be pope WITHOUT any ecclesiastical trial, Council, etc. It is up to the College of Cardinals (at least the truly faithful ones) to act. It now appears the next step of these four brave cardinals is to do the unthinkable. Regardless, the they must preserve the Faith which Christ and the Apostles passed on to us.
Al, the difficulty is in the mechanics. How do you determine if a pope is in obstinate public heresy? How do the Cardinals analyse and judge? It assumes that the Cardinals are honest in their assessment. The logical flaws in AL are clear, even for a layman like me. But we have German and Argentine bishops more than willing to ignore logic to be “pastorally compassionate”. I believe there are many Cardinals are more aligned with the Germans and Argentinians than with Burke et. al.
As others have noted elsewhere in this thread, it is not about the numbers, but holding true to the Truth. These four cardinals have all their ducks in line. Hang on to your hat, it’s going to be a wild ride! We, the Church Militant, get to not only witness history in the making, but also a part of it! I am excited!
Al, I agree. The truth is the truth. However, you and I spend a bit of time every day thinking about such things. Your typical Catholic does not. A dispute among Cardinals without a framework for a decision is a recipe for more confusion and schism.
What a great post.
I don’t get it. Is this humility by ignoring these Cardinals and the countless others? We’ve had a dictator in the office of the Presidency and we have another in the church? This is insane, like he is Jesus Christ and no one should question him, so ignore it and then be revengeful to some of them who question him. This is not what Christ would want and he is not God, he has to Speak in an unambiguous way and humble himself. Christ was very clear. God help us!
I can say these things because it is my church.
Get docile already.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5a46349f0e49777384fd0c741ecaf9b577000d28b3b58304f5c950aec5f8191b.jpg
?
Vision of Hell by St. Theresa of Avila (Doctor of the Church). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT8JTpVrH2c&t=309s Go to the 10 minute mark- she talks about the Lutherans- one of the greatest mystics of the Church. Maybe the Pope should do a little reflecting on his positions.
Good find Mike and Thank you for sharing this.
At this point, who needs The Da Vinci Code or Angels & Demons when we have this new developing drama playing out in the RCC? It should be well documented. Someone, buy the rights to the story now before Columbia Pictures gets it! And domain name!
Er … brothers and sisters faithful, it doesn’t appear that Pope Francis is changing course anytime soon (the following is a link): Incredible – Sandro Magister reveals: A Banana-Republic Gestapo for Francis: Either Defend Amoris Laetitia, or You’re In Trouble
Of course, tyrants always have a Gestapo to enforce their will. Marriage as an ideal is itself a grave error and contradicts the Direct Teaching of Jesus Christ and the constant teaching of His Bride the Church.
Honestly what he does is unbelievably shocking.
Our times doesn’t shock us nearly so much because we live in it, but Catholics of 100 years ago would be horrified and thinking that the stars are about to start falling out of the sky. They’d probably be right, too. Our pope actually has a thought police to suppress Catholics. Our pope.
“Marriage as an ideal is itself a grave error”
That cannot be said enough, Fr., and this is not even one of the dubia raised by the cardinals. The entire document AL is riddled with this error and it is used throughout to prepare the ground for the blasphemies which erupt in Ch VIII. Those who think they can “pick the good bits” out of AL are incredibly naive as the whole thing is a propaganda piece with the aim of ending the indissolubility of marriage. To be precise, the propaganda begins in para. 3.
I could not agree more. Pope Francis and all of his theological henchman are actually positing that the Church has taught erroneously about Marriage from the beginning, and not only erroneously but in a way that brings real harm to the faithful!
Cardinal Burke addressed the problem with the notion of Christian marriage as an ideal immediately in his fist interview back in April, the one where he said that the document isn’t magisterial, you know when everyone wanted to lynch him for not being strong enough.
The ncregister have just put up an Edward Pentin interview with Cardinal Burke that is encouraging in that he says numbers don’t count, it is the Truth they are looking for & that the next step is in correcting the pope & will be implemented.
I just posted the link and an excerpt from it above. Thanks for making this interview known to us.
Actually Francis has given an indirect answer. When answering the question of the Lutheran woman who wanted to know whether she can receive Holy Communion with her husband, Francis stated basically “I can’t answer that question…talk to the theologians (like Kasper)…..talk with God…I will say no more”.
Antonio Spadaro, SJ, of “Civilta Cattolica,” an intimate advisor to Pope Francis, tweeted today in response to the “dubia” …
“The Pope has “clarified.” Those who don’t like what they hear pretend not to hear it! Just read…”
I agree. Pope Bergoglio clarified “Amoris Laetitia” in September in his letter to Monsignor Sergio Alfredo Fenoy.
But is this “tweet” merely Spadaro’s response or the Pope’s definitive response? Why would either of them react in such manner? Why would Pope Francis condone such a maneuver?
What does this say about Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
He appears to indict himself.
Unfortunately we can take some comfort in this, in that if what appears true is indeed so, it makes the nature of the crisis abundantly clear. There seems to no longer be any ambiguity at all – except in the eye of any bishop or cardinal who is watching out for his own temporal welfare, instead of the eternal welfare of the men and women who compose the Body of Christ. Can such men even be regarded as men of faith, let alone Roman Catholics? Religion appears to be only a utilitarian devise for their own comfort and security.
D E P O S E
From St. Thomas Aquinas…
>>To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: “Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: ‘Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.’ Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5].” It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm#article4
So also said Archbishop Fulton J Sheen.
Make Catholicism One Again.
This is from the interview with Cardinal Burke given to Edward Pentin at the Register, it is excellent and everyone should go and read it. This is the final part of the interview and it is clear concise:
” What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.” http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-on-amoris-laetitia-dubia-tremendous-division-warrants-action
This is Very Big. Everyone needs to pray, fast and should have Masses offered for the deliverance of the Church from the corrupt members of the Hierarchy who are seeking to subvert Her to their perverse wills. Just have the Masses said as a special intention…
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke’s systematic approach is a thing to behold. Wow!
THIS is actually more eye opening than anything in the interview above. Very striking. Thanks for the heads up.
Yes, in this interview Burke now seems to be saying that this is about more than mere ambiguity; essentially, either affirm these teachings of the Church or we’re going to accuse you, not of being ambiguous, but of contradicting these doctrines.
Finally a line in the sand.
This is Lepanto III.
Excellent post. Just knowing that someone in authority in the Church has finally stepped up makes me happy – although I feel apprehensive about the outcome. It’s been slow because Cdl Burke and the others are very scholarly and careful, dotting their i’s and crossing every t, so that they can build their case and, in charity, give Francis time to reconsider and repent. I don’t think he’s remotely likely to do so, alas. But at least something is finally happening and we won’t feel so abandoned.
I have thought from the beginning of the current papacy that Benedict remains the pope as long as he lives. I find it unconvincing that the Church is so insistent that God has to respect the will of man when it comes to the resignation of a reigning pope. It would be quite ironic after all of this angst that when all is revealed, that Francis and friends had been given the freedom to reveal themselves to all as they truly are and not as they pretend to be.
I’ve been beginning to wonder that myself. I complete my rosary by praying for the Pope (whoever, and no longer specifying one by name). Jesus Mercy
I have thought from the beginning of the current papacy that Benedict remains the pope as long as he lives.
What happens when he dies?
PB should disclose the full Third Secret. He has nothing to lose & will be meeting his Creator & Saviour soon enough. He should also urge the consecration of Russia. Whatever held him back while acting Pope in carrying out Our Lady’s requests should now be put aside – action is urgently needed & he should give the lead in the right direction.
And the next step? My prediction is that the Pope continues to refuse to answer any yes/no questions. The 4 Cardinals then proceed to announce that AL is heretical and that the Pope is guilty of formal heresy and no longer the Pope. The Pope, in turn, ex-communicates the 4 cardinals and they join Novus Ordo Watch, SSPV, CMRI and the rest of the already existing sedevacantists. Then what?
Then nothing, my brother bishop. Because it is my church.
Unless you want a red hat. There will be openings. Soon, soon!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9fdb4c98e88b31dd9edb434358d4519a1bcdee5cbe5ea4f5f6eacb93e15ba8cf.jpg
If the Pope is formally declared a heretic, then any words or actions on his part after that would not be binding. Therefore, he would not be able to ex-communicate the (4) cardinals.
If he is formally declared a heretic it will be by a small minority of the Church’s cardinals/bishops. The vast majority will still accept him as the true Pope so, yes, he will be able to ex-communicate the 4 cardinals. In fact, I’m quite sure they expect this.
Excommunicate? On what grounds. As VII always reminds us, the Bishop of Rome is just primus inter pares. Your argumentum ad numerum hides the fact that the 4 Cardinal’s critique must be answered. Their questions are legitimate.
I don’t think the Pope needs a reason. What reason did Pope Alexander VI have for excommunicating Savonarola?
and also as a heretic he is not Pope, and possibly all his appointments (and the impact of his veiled messages in plane interviews) since the time of his election, become null and void . The trouble is that the Catholic world has millions of uncatechised and secularised ‘catholics’; that’s a problem Popes have been facing for probably best part of 20th century. So what does an uncatechised catholic choose to do now?
How ironic would it be if the year of mercy was intended for Francis himself all along? I believe it ends this Sunday with the Feast of Christ the King and coincides with Francis’ meeting with the cardinals.
Scandal? I say let him be deposed. As any good physician will tell you: to truly cure an infected wound, you must first thoroughly clean out the pus-infected areas. Only then may salve and bandages be applied and antibiotics administered.
Pope Francis is an infection in the church. He needs to be ‘cleaned out’ so that true healing may begin to occur and – precisely – to avoid further scandal among the faithful. To worry that his being deposed would cause scandal is like a mother pleading with the surgeon not to remove her son’s gangrenous leg out of misplaced pity or intellectual softness. Unless the leg is removed, the son will die. Sure, it’s harsh, but there is no alternative.
Depose him sooner precisely to prevent [further] scandal, I say.
“be deposed” by God in God’s time.
I wonder if Pope Francis is regretting giving Cardinal Burke the boot from the Apostolic Signatura. Would Cardinal Burke have been this direct & public if he was still there?
In all honesty i think he would. I think he is a very devout man in a very hard position. I believe he is sincere in love of the faith
He’s clearly not lost his edge. I thought that he had.
La Salette – the Church will be in eclipse.
Which, if we look at chapter 1 of John’s Gospel, is analogous to the sun and so it being black as (though in) sackcloth.
It’s interesting that the Vatican response was a bit testy at the Public letter to the Pope by the four Cardinals. Then in a interview of Archbishop Cupich, Cupich was asked if the resistance by some Bishops of the Church was good. Arch. Cupich responded that it was sad that these Bishops do not know what it means to be Bishops of the Church alluding to Cardinal Burke and the three other Cardinals that signed the open letter. Cupich is going to be Cardinal very soon. Archbishop Cupich is the Hillary Clinton of the Catholic Church on the teachings of Divorce and Remarried. His views are sympathetic to Homosexual unions and Sodomy in the Catholic Church. This is the same Archbishop who just criticized four brave Cardinals who are doing something as defending the authentic teachings of the Holy Catholic Church which is without error. It looks like there will be a spiritual battle between Arch. Cupich and Card. Burke in Card. Burke ‘s effort to protect the teachings of the Church and to save souls from false teachings that will lead their souls to the fires of Hell. Card. Burke and the three others are willing to become Martyrs in protecting the Catholic Church from teaching error which is Heresy.
I think you will see, 4 cardinals and pope benedict xvi come out of rome probably go to fatima where together they will consecrate russia
Thanks Steve. We all need to push Pope Francis for clarification while continuing our resistance.
Finally some action!!! For too long Pope Francis has been throwing fast and loose out statements, topped off by his pre planned Synod on adultery. My question is, where the has Cardinal Muller been in all this? As Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith: he’s charged in protecting the Church from this type of error – that’s his baby. He is meant to investigate Catholics, especially clerics, who in positions on authority state views and teach positions contrary to the Magesterium and to Scripture. Muller has totally been missing in action.
So too Pope Benedict. He has a lot to answer for as he should have stayed in his position until they carried him out in a box. Instead he ran from the wolves dressed as Cardinals.
This is absolutely tragic, and tragically, it seems, tragically necessary.
At this point, I am leaning towards the anti-pope camp . . . was there something irregular about the conclave that elected Francis? I know the theories about the St. Gallen mafia, but I which we could learn more from the Cardinals that were present. This situation is so historically strange, that it is starting to stretch the imagination to believe that Francis is really our pope. Time will tell.
You hit the nail squarely on the head. I have argued for quite some time that Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which governs the VALID election of a pope was violated by way too many of the cardinals during the conclave. If you have not read this document, go to the Vatican’s website and read it. It will open your eyes. Even JPII knew of the wolves among the cardinals.
OK, this is something I just don’t get.
I’m a convert admittedly, but what I see in the Catholic Church FUNCTIONALLY is the existence of lots and lots of law, paper doctrine and paper dogma that is simply and sweepingly disregarded, that is, as if it doesn’t even exist. For example, extra ecclesiam nula salus. Is ANYBODY going to tell me virtually ANYONE in the Church still holds to ANYTHING LIKE what was taught before V2 on that score? Even B16 said the dogma was “abandoned” after V2!
So to your point, if words have ANY meaning to Catholic prelates AT ALL, as a guy who reads legal material and contracts for a living, I don’t see how Pope Francis CAN be a valid Pope simply on the issue of JPII’s pronouncement itself. The thing is manifestly clear and the “Gallen Mafia” has notoriously and obnoxiously ADMITTED and CONFESSED in public that they lobbied and scammed Bergoglio into the Seat! How in the world has this not led to charges already?
In effect, then, as with many other things, we have one more scrap of worthless paper scrawled out by some guy who is called a “Pope” that has utterly no meaning at all.
Unless…..
It’s all in the works. But if it was, I’d think we hear something about it by now.
Keep reading, learning, and praying. Stay faithful to your duties in life. Apostates will be apostates–you just stay the course. Maybe Francis isn’t pope, but certainly appears to be. I’ve lost a few friends to schismatic sects like the Orthodox because of Francis’ antics.
Don’t allow yourself to be one of the ones that Christ spoke of: “They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.” (1 John 2:19).
Personally, I quit listening to the buffoon a long time ago. His beatitudes were the yellow snow on Martin Luther’s dunghill that tipped my scale. A schism, caused by Francis and the modernists, would be a terrible thing–but also a purification. There would be no more sitting on the fence. I don’t know about you, but I like being able to tell goats from sheep. So I say, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
I’ve taken the position, and still do, because he IS until the Church determines otherwise, that Francis IS a valid Pope.
I’m not going anywhere. I am blessed with an FSSP parish and great priests. A parish we found after some time being spoonfed the yellow snow of which you speak… LOL.
That’s great. You’re lucky. We are blessed with an awesome diocesan priest who offers the traditional Mass. There are no traditional orders near us, though–unless we want to travel 3 hours.
We have to drive 1 1/2 hours. But it’s worth it. A friend badgered me over and over for a year to visit. I wanted nothing to do with any Latin Mass.
But the Lutheranism {without the kneeling rail of course, our old Lutheran church still has rails!} in worship and etc, was appalling, so I finally visited. That was it. Basically, our FSSP parish is simply Catholic. In worship and in preaching and in outreach.
a great challenge would be how to get any message out so as to be recognised as “official” to the “Catholic world” regarding the status of the Pope.
I have not (yet) read the document. Do you know what was specified concerning papal elections?
This is a post from a couple of months ago. This should help:
The College of Cardinals cannot ever validly elect a known manifest, material heretic to the Throne of Peter. To do so is to violate the very oath they all take prior to a conclave.
In Bergoglio’s case, an overwhelming number of cardinals (at least two-thirds of them) voted to elect him despite knowing his record as Cardinal Archbishop of Beunos Aires, Argentina- all very well documented. Additionally, I believe (with now available public and corroborated facts) that the College of Cardinals en masse violated the apostolic constitution left by Pope John Paul II and left unchanged by Pope Benedict which governs the valid election of a pope. The document is called Universi Dominici Gregis. You can find it on the Vatican’s website.
From my perspective, either the election is invalid and Bergoglio is not and never became pope, or, conversely, if validly elected, he most certainly lost the charism of the papacy given by the Holy Spirit not to err in matters of Faith and Morals. Which is it?
Although this judgment can only officially come about either through the College of Cardinals, a future Council, and/or a future pope, it is most clear at this point as far as faithful, traditional Catholics can see that he is teaching outright heresy. He is also thumbing his nose at even holy bishops who challenge and call him out asking for either clarification or the rescinding of all three of his papal documents to date.
Pope Paul IV (not the VI) wrote a papal bull entitled Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio February 15, 1559, which he wrote as Supreme Pastor and Pontiff as a matter of Faith and Morals (Ex Cathedra- Infallibly pronouncing) that any man elected to the papacy who teaches outright heresy ceases to be pope unless he recants. Likewise, he that is a heretic can never become a valid pope even if the cardinals elect him.
YIKES.
I don’t think so. Bergolio is a representative sample of the typical ‘novus ordo’ Priest. it took a few years but we now have that paradigm sitting in the Chair of St. Peter. Benedict XVI, JP2 et.al. were a product of Vatican II but they still had some solid grounding from more saner times which helped temper their liberality.
The claims made against Pope Francis today, could be (and were) made against the other V2 Popes. Today the accusations are of a moral character, back then they were of a doctrinal nature. People seem to sit up and take notice of the former which is sad if you ask me, since it implies a lukewarmness towards the latter. People tend to notice when a Pope has a mistress and fathers children in the Vatican but tend to look the other way when the liturgy is destroyed and doctrine overthrown.
This is about multiple Doctrines: Marriage, Penance and the Eucharist (and I am sure there are more, like the nature of evil, the nature of conscience, the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture etc…)
It is.
Francis has run roughshod over numerous doctrines and teachings of the Church with his slovenly language and irreverent and flippant statements. Just as Cardinal Burke says, this is not just about “marriage and divorce”.
As I mentioned above, the Cardinals are directing their inquiry AT HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS far beyond the limitations of the topic of family.
This suggests that they themselves are concerned not just about HERESY of Bergoglio, but rather, APOSTASY of Bergoglio.
If so, I’m right with them.
They have begun a criminal investigation.
I go back and forth on this. It does seem that Francis is the very embodiment of VII — he is “representative” as you put it. On the other hand, Francis seems to exhibit a certain . . . malice . . . towards the faith that is alarming. Whereas it seems that other post-VII Popes may have acted with more or less ignorance and weakness, they didn’t seem to possess the kind of malice that boldly pronounces heresy, that leads others into mortal sin like the pied piper, and that denigrates the orthodox relentlessly.
Exactly. It’s the malicious attitude that reveals so much and separates PF from the other post-V2 popes.
I think it’s not just momentus but it shows Burke’s mode of thought. Extremely soft spoken (almost misleadingly soft by today’s standard) but very precise. And he’s lain out his strategy thus far with the three steps culminating in before the Church…. The next stage ends in something sometimes translated, I believe, as “anathema”.
This is not going away.
Burke et, al would not have selected the Scripture passage they chose if it was. The last half of verse 17 of Matthew 18 leaves no doubt.
And notice how Burke specifically references BERGOGLIO’S PERSONAL BELIEFS, NOT JUST THE WRITINGS OF AL. They just stuck their thumbs right in his eyes and he can’t like it one bit.
No, these guys see a raging, flaming heretic on many issues. And they are going to dig him out.
I see schism on the horizon.
It already exists in the Church already. There are effectively “2 Churches” in the Catholic Church as we speak. We know the Church teaches that there are believers and non-believers mixed together and will be till the Judgment. That is NOT what I’m referring to. I mean that there is effectively something like a Lutheran “church” existing within the CC right now. As an ex-Lutheran I see it everywhere in Novus Ordoland and I see it manifest clearly in the Pope himself. I believe that whole group: administrators, Cardinals, Bishops, priests, etc, will at some time in the future leave in formal schism. I think it is coming.
Similarly to what happened in England after Henry. Remember…the Anglicans still affirm their “Catholicity”!!
And here’s more; I see the “New Catholics” joining the liberal lesbian-led Lutherans in “full communion”. Pope’s already said he wants it!
Some Lutheran sects {remember, Catholics, there is no such thing as a unified Lutheran Church} already have ordination and communion agreements with the Episcopalian, the Reformed Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, that whole rogue’s gallery of homo-sympathetic, divorce-supporting, pseudo-Christian “mainline” organizations will thus have close and “liturgically” bound relationships. They are all dying but these sorts of new agreements always serve to stave off the last gasp for a few more years. They’ve been at it for 40 years and it’s about time the post-Vatican 2 crowd go in on it since they have had sympathies with that whole rank crowd of mainliners for YEARS.
Who gets the Catholic buildings will be a fight in every country.
As a former Lutheran, I agree with you, although, I am not sure with regards to a schism.
Will this go the way of the Ottaviani Intervention?
I don’t think so. Ottaviani did not lay out a process for addressing the issue in the event of a rebuff. The Big Four have. They have made clear by using the Matthew 18 passage that RESOLUTION in orthodoxy is the end game, not acceptance of stalling, more ambiguity, etc.
How many of us who have read and studied Pope Francis over the last three years believe he is going to answer these questions with clear, orthodox answers?
Well I don’t think Burke and the rest feel any differently and I seriously doubt they ignored that eventuality when they sent the letter in the first place. Burke has outlined for us the many steps that were taken to attempt to get Pope Francis to come clean on the doctrinal issues. He won’t, and I think the Cardinals have a plan to deal with this. Whether it works or not, who knows at this point, but this is a fight brewing, not just a few little kids asking Mommy to tell them about the birds and the bees and Mommy responding “I’ll tell you when you are older”….
Certainly unprecedented times with a real possibility of Cardinals being excommunicated. The closest parallel I can find is all the way back in the 16th Century when Pope Julius excommunicated 5 Cardinals for holding a council without his approval.
I’m also seeing a lot of responses in the comments that the Pope would need a valid reason to excommunicate the 4 cardinals. I don’t think this is correct because Pope Alexander VI had Savonarola excommunicated without ever declaring that he held any heretical views.
Good point.
Old Rod Borgia did tho, did he not, declare that Savonarola was inciting violence, rebellion and upsetting the masses and law and order or some such {which may have been true}. Not disagreeing with you as I agree heresy was not at issue there, but serious charges were made against Savonarola and they were not unimportant, at least by the standards of the day.
Yep but I wouldn’t put it beyond Pope Francis to excommunicate citing disunity or something along those lines.
That’s true.
Being’s it’s Bergoglio, he might charge them with orthodoxy and excommunicate them for that!!
They will be excommunicated for the heresy of rigidity.
Jorge is replacing the doctrines of Heaven with the doctrines of demons!
“Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils.” – 1 Timothy 4:1
The plot is thickening: http://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/holy-see/in-wake-of-rejection-of-dubia-pope-francis-cancels-meeting-with-cardinals
Is the Pope running away to avoid scary Cardinals? perhaps he knows something?
Some catholics, God bless them, need to grow up and think for themselves and not go looking for someone to think for them… Ultimately it is us a individuals, moved by the Spirit, that has to try and make the best decision in the specific circumstances as they arise. The church has alway recognised this. (this could be a surprise for some) The church’s Cannon Law often refers to specific circumstances where a pastoral approach can be the best decision, which can override the legalistic nature of Canon Law. Indeed Canon Law reminds all that we must remember that the supreme commandment is the salvation of souls.(N1752). We have to shift away from a purely legalistc mindset when it comes to how we are best to follow Jesus. Indeed this shifting away from a legalistic mindset is what Pope Francis is asking the faithful to aim for.
Burke’s very first comments in this article: “In the same portion of Sacred Scripture to which you refer, Our Lord also said that, after addressing a difficulty to a brother, individually and together with others, without it being resolved, then, for the good of the Church the matter is to be presented to the whole Church. This is precisely what we are doing.”
Burke has condemned HIMSELF with these comments. There is ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS in Catholic Tradition for a comment like this. There is NO DIFFERENCE here with what any educated PROTESTANT might well have written!
First of all, let me say from the outset that I expect my comments here and right below to be excised from this dialog: they’re outside the box! What Cardinal Burke says below has in fact NO BASIS WHATEVER in the Tradition of the Church. There was only ONE case of a pope being PRIVATELY confronted with the orthodoxy of what he said and in some sense “retracting” it as a “personal opinion”: Pope John XXII’s belief about when the Beatific Vision occurs; And NO case of a PUBLIC confrontation a la Burke. There is ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS WHATEVER for what Burke has done. In fact, the WHOLE of what I have “cut and pasted” from the dialog below is a “biblical exegesis” that is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PROTESTANT HERESY! I challenge ANYONE to present HISTORICAL TESTIMONY in the DOGMATIC TRADITION of the Church that parallels the heresy Burke has articulated in his comments below! And, just for the sake of setting perimeters: a citation of Honorius I’s acquiescence to Monothelitism — that Christ had only a divine will, not a human one — for which he was rightly admonished, will not suffice: Monothelitism had already been condemned as a reemergence of the heresy that Christ was only truly God, not also truly man. The case is much the same if anyone should bring up Vigilius’ political acquiescence to “The Three Chapters”: they had already been condemned.
Now, this cut-and-paste from the interview, followed by further comments:
Pentin: What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Cardinal Burke: Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
Pentin: In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
Cardinal Burke: What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
Pentin: If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
Cardinal Burke: It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it
Now: regarding the question that seems to have precipitated all this: the POSSIBILITY of admitting the divorced and remarried to reception of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church’s doctrine of Indissolubility of Sacramental Marriage has NEVER been so defined as to EXCLUDE such a possibility. Indeed, the history of the Council of Trent, which defined indissolubility and that stands at the pinnacle of sources on the question, is particularly instructive on the subject. The gathered Fathers received the original definition that stated that anyone who says marriage can be dissolved shall be declared “anathema!” The Fathers refused to approve it. Their most important argument, as far as I am concerned, was that such a definition would both condemn the Orthodox Church, whose ancient teaching and practice on the whole matter was, from the beginning, very different AND would thereby preclude any chance for reconciliation between the two Churches. For this reason, the DEFINITION that they then received and to which they voted “placet” was this: anyone teaching that THE CHURCH ERRS in teaching the indissolubility of sacramental marriage shall be declared “anathema!” That the Roman Catholic Church “does not err” in her teaching on indissolubility is absolutely right. BUT, as Trent intimates, that neither says EVERYTHING that can be said nor PRECLUDES another — read Orthodox — understanding.
Finally, despite Burke and others’ constant intimation to the contrary, dogma and praxis are NOT co-terminus. If they WERE, there’d really be NO BASIS for the canonical annulment process. Yes, an annulment is the Church’s judicial statement that a sacramental marriage never truly existed. But the very process itself is part of the Church’s praxis and is itself a product of her compassion for flawed souls. As such, while not identical to the Orthodox principle of compassionate “ekonomia” for those same souls, it is parallel to it. A canonist who intimates that there can be no light of day between dogma and praxis is a flawed canonist, a poor historian, and an inadequate theologian.
An addendum to the two comments I have posted below. Read carefully the excerpt I cut and pasted from the Pentin-Burke interview. Cardinal Burke’s position is nothing more and nothing less than out-and-out CONCILIARISM — the CONDEMNED belief from the 14th-16th century that an ecumenical council has priority of jurisdiction over the Pope in what we would call “matters of faith and morals”. In fact, what Burke has articulated is WORSE — MUCH worse — than even THAT! He is in fact postulating, although he may not even know it — in itself, a problem of intellectual prowess — that a self-appointed cardinalatial “GANG OF FOUR” has the right to override the Pope and even supplant his primatial authority in the spiritual and dogmatic guidance of the Church! THAT IS HERESY — PURE AND SIMPLE!