Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Cardinal Schönborn Says Amoris Laetitia is Binding Doctrine

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

Austrian Catholic website reports that on 7 July, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn published an interview in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, in which he said that Amoris Laetitia is a binding doctrinal document. From now on, says Schönborn, all the previous magisterial texts concerning marriage and the family “have to be read in the light of Amoris Laetitia.”

Schönborn also said in this interview – a fuller excerpt of this text has now been published in English in the Jesuit journal Civiltà Cattolica – that it is “obvious” that Amoris Laetitia is an act of the Magisterium since it is an Apostolic Exhortation. reports:

All previous magisterial statements concerning marriage and the family now have to be read in the light of Amoris Laetitia, Schönborn stressed, and just as today the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) must be interpreted in the light of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

Cardinal Raymond Burke had previously claimed that Amoris Laetitia did not have a doctrinally binding character; Cardinal Carlo Caffarra and Cardinal Walter Brandmüller both had insisted that Amoris Laetitia had to be read in light of the previous magisterial texts.

Cardinal  Schönborn also now says that Amoris Laetitia is “an authentic lesson of the holy teaching” which now actualizes doctrine for today’s world. He added, according to

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had once told him, during that time, that one should not handle all of the cases of the remarried divorcees according to one overall general rule.

222 thoughts on “Cardinal Schönborn Says Amoris Laetitia is Binding Doctrine”

      • Yes and no. Burke doesn’t need authority to make his statement, and neither do Cardinal Carlo Caffarra and Cardinal Walter Brandmüller to add theirs.

        They didn’t make their statements on their own authority; they merely reiterated what has always been. Whether at a high level of authority like councils or low-level papal documents like apostolic exhortations, so-called “development of doctrine” MUST ALWAYS be read in light of what was handed down before.

        Schornborn is trying to pull a fast one by pretending AL carries more weight than it does, so louiseyvette is exactly spot on: “Schonborn doesn’t have the authority to say so.”

        But your remark could not be more wrong because it does not apply.


    • Pope Francis: “I recommend that you read the presentation of Cardinal Schonborn, who is a great theologian. He was the secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and he knows the doctrine of the faith well. In that presentation, your question will find an answer.”

      • Francis I vouches for Cdl. Schönborn who vouches for Francis I.

        Fantastic! Glad that’s cleared up.

        Their mutual-admiration society reminds me of a long-defunct cartoon strip with two characters, Alphonse and Gaston, neither of whom would enter a room before the other did. Instead, they would stand at the entrance repeating: “After you, my dear Alphonse.” “No, you first, my dear Gaston.”

        • Who vouches for Francis I? The entire Hierarchy it seems. Not one to date has stepped out of line to denounce his pastoral teachings which have now become Binding Doctrine.

          • Read again. I was not asking “who”? I stated who he is: “Cdl. Schönborn.”

            The “who” is a relative pronoun, not an interrogative one.

      • Yes, it’s dire, but still I would have thought a statement meant to be infallible ought to be described as such with precision and formality. This is only my intuition.

      • I’m not in denial about the Pope, BTW. He’s causing huge problems. If we count this as a statement that is pretending to be infallible, how do we understand the situation?

        • This is clearly not an infallible statement by the Holy Father. It lacks the required characteristics:

          Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

          §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

          His recommendation of Cardinal Schonborn is not a definitive act, it does not deal with a doctrine of faith or morals, and it is certainly not manifestly evident.

          If Cardinal Schonborn’s claim is to mean anything, he must be referring to the level of authority laid out in Canon 752:

          Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

          Lumen Gentium 25 may be a little closer to what His Eminence had in mind:

          This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

          According to the good cardinal, the pope was exercising his authentic magisterium in AL, which certainly deals with faith and morals (or at least the latter). So arguendo, those conditions are satisfied.

          But as I asked below, what is the specific doctrine to which we are required to give religious submission of intellect and will? I have asked this question countless times about Vatican II, and have never received a good answer. And in the case of AL, I expect Cardinal Schonborn’s answer would be the same as the one I usually get regarding Vatican II: All of it!

          But this won’t do. Doctrines comprise specific, discrete propositions, not multi-thousand word assemblages of varying authority. Is Jesus Christ God Incarnate? Was the Blessed Virgin immaculately conceived? Was the Catholic Church established upon Peter? And so on.

          Moreover, the pope is not empowered to make up new doctrines, much less to obviate existing ones. He is bound to safeguard the Deposit of Faith as handed down by the Apostles. So, if we are to give assent to Specific Propositions X, Y, and Z in AL, we must first of all know what they are, and secondly understand how they are harmonious with the Deposit of Faith.

          I expect they’ll explain this to us … oh, any day now.

          • “Moreover, the pope is not empowered to make up new doctrines, much less to obviate existing ones. He is bound to safeguard the Deposit of Faith as handed down by the Apostles.”

            Right. But thanks very much for these references. I really think we all need to have these to hand.

          • “Doctrines comprise specific, discrete propositions, not multi-thousand word assemblages of varying authority.”

            Right. And not word salad, either.

          • 1) That AL is a papal magisterial [= teaching] act is clear to me.
            2) But not all papal magisterial acts belong to or are in accord with the authentic Church’s Magisterial acts exercised by the authentic Church’s Magesterium [Teaching Body].
            3) The authentic Church’s Magisterial acts are infallible [=preserved from error] when exercised through the Church’s organs of infallibility which are:
            a) ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope;
            a) bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
            c) the pope himself separately [under conditions of the dogma per Vatican I].
            Illustrative Example:
            It can easily be shown that Amoris Laetitia (dd. 19 March 2016, released 8 April 2016) | Pope Francis contradicts Familiaris Consortio (November 22, 1981) | John Paul II and both are “Apostolic Exhortations”. It also contradicts the encyclical Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993) | John Paul II but we will leave this out of this argument.

            Card. Schönborn the presenter and per Pope Francis the main exegete of his post-synodal exhortation tells us that AL does not contradict FC but develops it. But FC on divorced and civilly remarried receiving communion states:

            However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.

            whilst AL says they can be admitted in certain cases and clearly those cases are not the ones that follow the Church’s perennial practice based on Sacred Scripture.

            The conclusions readily follow:
            1) AL and FC cannot both lay claim that they both uphold perennial Church practice and teaching.
            2) Therefore one is in error.
            3) Which proves that unless magisterial acts [papal acts included] – it goes without saying in matters of faith and morals – are exercised through Church’s organs of infallibility, they are not necessarily preserved from error and can be liable to error.
            4) If a magisterial act is erroneous, it does not belong to authentic Church’s Magisterial acts and must be condemned and rejected by the Church.

            O God, who show the light of your truth
            to those who go astray,
            so that they may return to the right path,
            give all who for the faith they profess
            are accounted Christians
            the grace to reject whatever is contrary to the name of Christ
            and to strive after all that does it honor.

            Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
            who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
            one God, for ever and ever.
            – Fifteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time

          • Yes I did. This is what I presented: Pope Francis & The Synod on the Family 2015 STAND CONDEMNED! []
            And following that I have done this: Bishops: Be Brave before Pope Francis as Paul before Peter | Online Petitions [], which I have been tweeting to, e-mailing, etc. individual bishops and bishops’ conferences.

          • Thank you @louiseyvette and thank you for attending and for your support too! I am far away in HI so could not make the trip. I thank God for the efforts of those in his Church striving to remain faithful to him and his Church.
            PS I also signed those Veri Catholici petitions.

          • Father Spadaro: Some have spoken of AL as a minor document, a personal opinion of the pope (so to speak) without full magisterial value. What value does this exhortation possess? Is it an act of the magisterium? This seems obvious, but it is good to specify it in these times, in order to prevent some voices from creating confusion among the faithful when they assert that this is not the case …
            Cardinal Schonborn: It is obvious that this is an act of the magisterium: It is an apostolic exhortation. It is clear that the pope is exercising here his role of pastor, of master and teacher of the faith, after having benefited from the consultation of the two synods. I have no doubt that it must be said that this is a pontifical document of great quality, an authentic teaching of sacra doctrina, which leads us back to the contemporary relevance of the Word of God. […] – The teaching authority of ‘Amoris Laetitia’
            Posted on July 7, 2016 by Cindy Wooden | CNS []

      • Schonborn at one point had Ivan the the phoney from medjugore streaming BVM and had her bless sacramentals via the internet from his diocese cathedral in viena. He appears to be a freemason on several measures, and this laymen considers him as Catholic as an old pair of boots. A “snake in a wood pile” on virtually every Catholic issue.

  1. This is exactly the inverse of the truth. Caffarra is the one who speaks with a Catholic mind by saying that every later document is to be read in continuity with the ones that go before. (Remember someone who talked about the “hermeneutic of continuity”?)

    • Exactly so, ever since VII the inverse reading of the Faith has become the operational Norm for many, despite the fact the opposite is the Tradition of the Church. All new documents are to be written in accord with the Tradition of the Church and read in light of that constant Tradition.

      • All new documents are to be written in accord with the Tradition of the Church and read in light of that constant Tradition.
        But AL disqualifies itself in that it is NOT written in accord with the Tradition of the Church. One cannot read error in continuity [or in line] with the Truth.

        • I agree, when I am told that I need to read Amoris Laetitia in the light of the Tradition of the Church, I tell those people that I have and based upon that light all I can say is that Amoris Laetitia is not part of the constant Tradition of the Church as it specifically contradicts said Tradition in many areas.

          • Very well said Rev Fr. RP. It is the Tradition of the Church [more accurately the Sacred Deposit of the Faith] to shine its light on any new document to discover whether or not such a document is in line with the perennial church Tradition, and not the other way around.

          • Precisely (Ipsum, Precisamente, Genau, Précisément)! The Sacred Deposit of the Faith comprises Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and It cannot be added to nor subtracted from without entering in Heresy (Formal or Material). Doctrine can develop, but only in accord with it’s seminal form: an Acorn cannot authentically develop into a Snow Flake, that would be a mutation/deformation/destruction of the acorn not a development of it. Amoris Laetitia in numerous places contradicts both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, therefore it cannot be an authentic development of Doctrine, ergo it is either a mutation, deformation or destruction (or any combination of the three) of Catholic Doctrine concerning Marriage, Penance, The Eucharist, Divine Moral Law and The Natural Law.

          • According to Vatican I, a Pope can only teach what is in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. He cannot invent any new doctrine.

      • Amoris Laetitia is in line with Tradition of Vatican 2… in order to understand the Pope’s position, we must look at the catholic perspective on the ecumenical relations with eastern orthodox churches… The catholic church recognizes the 7 sacraments of the Eastern orthodox despite the fact that the East allow divorce and contraception. The reason for this is primacy of Conscience given to the Eastern Churches… This is the same strategy that the Pope wants to apply to Catholics who are brain washed by their secular culture and secular education and environment…. and Just like the eastern orthodox and ecumenical dialogue that would make way to eventual unity and conversion of the east, the Pope is applying the same standard and strategy in using the Internal Forum and the Law of Gradualness for divorced and remarried Catholics….

        • The Eastern Orthodox Churches (not those aligned to Rome) are in complete disarray religiously & politically, the same as all Protestant denominations/sects. Why on earth would anyone want to join them? The Pope should be upholding the Ten Commandments in toto, Holy Matrimony, Holy Orders, Catechesis, Evangelisation, not caving in to Modernism/secularism – divorce by the backdoor, LGBT agenda, seeing good in cohabitation & accompanying people in ‘irregular situations’ with a view to allowing them partake in Holy Communion. These are heresies he’s teaching (& the Hierarchy know it) & making AL a Binding Document is another. Next he’ll be telling us euthanasia & abortion is OK under certain circumstances. The man is a craven Modernist & so are those who elected him & keep him in the position he was never entitled to hold.

          • if that is what you think about pope Francis… then we have a problem…. you should also consider past popes like Pope John Paul 2 and Pope Benedict 16 as Wrong because they allow the Catholic church to recognize the validity of the 7 sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox churches….. these Eastern Churches allow divorce and even contraception in their Eastern churches…..

          • they are not condemned… they are only condemned if they know in conscience that the catholic church is the truth and yet refuse to convert because of pride…. but if they were born as eastern orthodox and due to ignorance, they think the Eastern church holds the truth, then they can’t be condemned… what the church can do is to continue to hold an ecumenical dialogue…. at the same time, Rome has also RECOGNIZED the validity of the 7 sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox because Rome respects the primacy of conscience of the Eastern churches… this is the same strategy being applied to our catholic brothers and sisters who are brain washed by secular culture and secular environment ….

  2. The link to the “full text” leads to a pdf that is entitled “Excerpt”. Since when is an excerpt the full text??

  3. OK, Your Eminence. To which specific propositions in Amoris Laetitia are we bound to submit with “religious submission of intellect and will?”

  4. Cardinal Schoenborn is a heretic. Pope Francis vouches for Cardinal Schoenborn. You finish the syllogism.

  5. I have read Amoris Laetitia and I know that the clear and distinct Words of Jesus are much more important and binding than those of pope Francis or crd. Schönborn. But there is blessing in disguise because fortunately AL is so hazy and vague, that it doesn’t matter if it is doctrine or not…. Actually, this very sarcastic statement at the same time makes me cry!

    • Well, this is precisely the problem, as I keep hammering ad nauseum. We Catholics are required to assent to specific propositions, not to vague maybe-this-maybe-that-depending-on-the-concrete-circumstances-you-figure-it-out verbiage. I am quite open to the idea that we are bound to something in Amoris Laetitia, but first someone in authority has to tell us what it is.

      • Amoris Laetitia is therefore the worst writing in history of the church ever… You are totally right! My comment was only meant very sarcastic. I say about AL: The Holy Spirit does NOT bring confusion and vagueness!! So this document is NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit !!! Finally, that should mean that AL is not doctrine, because this is NOT what God (and also the Church) wants. In this time of sexual freedom and confusion, we need a clear and authentic answer from the Church!! Let’s pray that it may come, from this pope or another….

        • If so, they need to resign and do penance before they take their last breath in this life to face Final Judgement.

          • They do indeed need to publicly repent but one gets the feeling they tragically regard themselves superior to GOD.

  6. Thanks to Murray, below, we can refer to:

    Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

    §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

  7. “So, according to the eminent Dominican, Vatican ONE must be interpreted in light of Vatican TWO, and all previous papal moral teaching on marriage (even the infallible teachings) are interpreted in light of Amoris Laetitia.

    “This is the Cardinal who said, ‘We can and we must respect the decision to form a union with a person of the same sex,’ the prelate said, ‘[and] to seek means under civil law to protect their living together with laws to ensure such protection.’

    “The moral depravity he is endorsing aside, the Cardinal is endorsing a perfect inversion of the much lauded and almost-never-applied ‘hermeneutic of continuity.'”

    “What shall we call it? Any names? How’s the ‘hermeneutic of incongruity?’ Or, to dispense with something that rhymes and instead to focus on the ‘in light of’ imagery, why don’t we call it the ‘hermeneutic of forward-thinking backlighting?’ Such a clunky approach deserves a clunky name.”

  8. I will pay the same degree of obedience to this document, as it was paid to the Church’s magisterium by cardinal Danneels and his henchmen.

  9. In these matters light is cast from the back towards the front. So you can see where you are going! Duh! Looks like some people have their flashlight backwards… that must be why they are walking in darkness. And then they want us to do the same?!

  10. I have read a great deal over the course of now years pertaining to the Synods on the Family and its lamentable outcome. I can say without hesitation that Cardinal Schonborn’s statements are easily the most monstrously outrageous I have yet encountered.

    • He must have been co-author of AL to stand so staunchly behind it. Only a Modernist could. As it wasn’t an ex-cathedra document and came from a questionable catholic source, the same source as innumerable heresies, I can’t see the laity is obliged to pay much attention to it – other than criticise it, of course.

  11. Are we Muslim now? Abrogation applies to the Koran – later teachings abrogate earlier. Hence all the peace and love in early Koran is abrogated by later beheadings of Jews and infidels.

    Strike, Holy Ghost, strike!

  12. Another refrain from the Song of Vatican 2 aka “Disobey to Obey” or the “Devil Made Me Do it” Would that these heretics go back into their holes to hell permanently.
    Cdl S and PF have proven that they would no more know an authentic binding doctrine than they would know the formula for Coca Cola.

  13. I totally agree with Fr. RP and wonder why Mrs Hickson provided this opinion by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn without giving us counter arguments. This is not helpful. Thank God for the comment section.

    • Maike is a journalist more than a commentator. She most often provides news without commentary that she believes is important in our current situation. There’s an understanding that our readers are “tuned in” to why it matters.

  14. And, I might add, from LifeSiteNews now (Source: Francis appointed Archbishop Cupich to head the forwarding/selection of names of priests to become bishops.

    Can ANYONE now doubt Bergoglio’s true intentions? I hope I am alive to
    witness a future pontiff and Church Council issuing the anathemas and
    condemnation of Francis and his whole cohort of prelates. The Church is
    headed for a MAJOR SCHISM.

    • Can ANYONE now doubt Bergoglio’s true intentions?

      Michael Voris does. Read Voris’s “Vortex” for today (July 8). His thesis is: “It’s not the Pope; it’s the bishops.”

      Not a mention of the fact that this pope has appointed bishops of the type Voris rails against to key positions, as he just did with Cupich. And Voris takes potshots at other Catholic media outlets who don’t live up to his own infallible-in-his-own-mind standards as follows:

      When outfits like EWTN start talking about confusing things the pope is saying, the question needs to be asked – where have you been all these years when hundreds of bishops have let the Church deteriorate and rot on the vine. Is that just a case of chest pounding to act all tough now because they have tested the winds and realize that their audience doesn’t like some of what the pope says? There certainly hasn’t been any history of talking about the millions of problems caused by errant, wicked, unfaithful, delusional, bishops—and understand this very clearly—THEY have and continue to be the problem—not the pope.

      Nor is he above insulting “traditionalist” blogs (not naming names of course, because then he would have to acknowledge that there is evidence of him on YouTube and other easily-assessed Internet sites interviewing and being friendly with the likes of Chris Ferrara and Louie Verrecchio, and he clearly had no problem associating with “traditionalists” at the time), by stating:

      Likewise, for the so-called traditional blogs out there that fancy themselves the saviors of the Church – get real. All your incessant bile creates .. is worse conditions for any future cleaning of the Church because you have now created and inculcated a culture of suspicion surrounding whoever the next pope will be.

      So, to summarize Voris’s argument as best I can:

      –The Pope can say things that cause the faithful to doubt the Faith, whether or not their marriages are valid, whether or not DRMs can receive Holy Communion, etc., but it’s not his fault; it’s the bishops’;
      –The Pope can appoint men who are all but formal heretics to important positions (Cupich) while shunting aside those who try to uphold the traditional Faith (Burke), but it’s not his fault; it’s the bishops’;
      –The Pope is the head of Christ’s Church on earth, but apparently in holding this office he has no power or responsibility over anyone that serves under him, nor can he be held accountable for any of his own actions or the actions of those he fails to publicly chastise, because it’s not his fault; it’s the bishops’;
      –Modernists and dissident prelates have been around since the time of St. Pius X, who tried and failed (this is not true, as Pius drove them underground and forced them into the shadows where they could do the least amount of damage) to call them to heel, so how can Francis do anything else, when it’s all (you must remember) the bishops’ fault?

      Can anyone explain the logic in such an argument? Because if a pope has no power to do anything, then why do we even bother having one in the first place?

      • …you have now created and inculcated a culture of suspicion surrounding whoever the next pope will be.

        Actually, if I am not mistaken, I believe it was the post-conciliar popes themselves that did that.

      • I watched that episode and offered it as penance to get through the whole thing. It is “practical papolatry” in action by trying to put all the blame on bad bishops. Quite simply with Francis the problem is “both/and” meaning that unlike the previous popes, he is a major part of the problem, although certainly not the only one. That Voris complained about EWTN airing the episode where some of Francis’ remarks were criticized was quite ironic.

        • I’d read the comments on the piece soon if I were you, before the moderator goes apoplectic and deletes most of them. I’d wager that it’s split about 60–40 at this point, with 40% trying to defend Voris and the 60% majority taking umbrage with his total whitewashing of any responsibility Francis may have for actually running the Church, as well as his factual blunder in stating that St. Pius X failed unequivocally in his efforts to drive out Modernism and his ill-conceived, totally inappropriate attack on EWTN (whose founder he just praised to the heavens a few weeks ago at her passing).

          This may very well be the turning point for many of the people who have tried to justify Voris’s blind spot regarding this pontiff. Hopefully, their eyes will be opened and they will see that Voris, despite all his bluster, can hardly be considered a reliable news source for what is happening in Rome.

          • He has a Sedevecantist spirit. He may play as if he’s supporting the Pope, but pretending that the Pope has no authority do his job for good or ill is to pretend the Seat is Vacant.

      • Voris is a Sedevecantist in spirit. He seems to think that feigning that the Pope is an inanimate object with no real power or ability or duties is the way to avoid scandal. In truth, it’s just pretending that Voris is the voice of judgement and the Bishops are without a head.

        That’s why any logical discussion is ridiculed there. From any source.

      • He doesn’t follow through his own warped arguments and conclusions. If he wants the Bishops to do all of their job, he should be calling to them to be brave before Pope Francis as Paul was before Peter.

  15. No matter what qualifications Cardinal Schönborn holds, he is not going to use them for the furtherance of Christ’s Church on earth as he is a true Modernist. All of our Hierarchy are embroiled in this ideology & that is why none of them to date has shown any true responsibility for the souls in their care by coming forward & denouncing PF’s pastoral teachings which have now become Binding Doctrine.

  16. God save us from such men!
    How is mass attendance doing in Austria? How are baptisms and sacramental marriages?
    The same men who are wounding the Church in Austria and Germany are bringing their plan to the wider Church.
    Here is a good rule of thumb, if you failed in your small flock, you should not be allowed to get near the bigger flock.

  17. He is just asserting the classic progressive/Hegelian ratchet: conservative or traditionalist victories are always temporary and provisional, while liberal victories are always permanent and binding. The only permanent truth is that progressivism must always win.

  18. Here is Cardinal Shonborn telling us that A.L. is binding on us when he dose not feel that what previous Popes have issued as binding, Cardinal Schonborn, himself, does not feel what his predecessors have said is binding on him. What the cardinal is doing is saying that there are no fixed truths anymore, the truth is whatever the current Pope decides. This is more heresy and no Catholic is bound by what a heretic tells them.

    • Correct. They are only their opinions if not spoken from the Seat of Peter. Only then are they binding. PF is very careful NOT to make any of his exhortations ex cathedra for he & his imposter supporters know full well that will be the end for them.

  19. If I might add a comment yet still it is a question. Can we, I and thou, believe the Holy Ghost the divine eternal spirit of sanctifying grace and supernatural love picked this Francis as Pope then why did the Third Person the Paraclete do so? Look at what the present Pope is doing. He is splitting the church into two groups. There are ones who believe in the historic teachings of the Mystical Body and ones who do not. Among the latter are those who claim traditional beliefs but are faltering. Can we not say that The Holy Ghost is preparing us to make a decision. a living prophecy of will we be sheep or goats? Prepare yourselves to know the choice you are making and make sure you help those in a terrible conundrum and do not have an informed conscience. As the Jesuits taught me, we have free will, an informed conscience and then the burden of choice

    • The Holy Spirit doesn’t pick the Pope, the College of Cardinal’s does. God allowed him to be selected, but that is as far as it gets. Once again, the Holy Spirit does not pick the Pope, the College of Cardinal’s does.

      • Hi Fr. P – Who is the current leader of our Church which the Holy Spirit has chosen? I am sure that leader would fear the Lord, and focus us away from offending God.

        • The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church and there are many leaders in the Church, including all of the Cardinal’s, Bishops and even lowly Priests. The Holy Spirit doesn’t elect the Pope, or select the Cardinals or the Bishops or the Priests, the Church does through those very people. The Holy Spirit may indeed call men to the Priesthood and speak favorably of them to Bishops, Cardinal’s etc…about ordaining them, consecrating them etc…but those men may choose not listen and indeed may choose someone who is the exact opposite.

          • Ah, that wonderful interplay between God’s Will and man’s freedom.
            Numerous biblical examples abound: The apostles, the rich young man, the eleven who remained faithful vs. Judas, the disciples who left after the discourse on the Eucharist in the Synagogue at Caper′na-um, etc. In all these cases, the LORD chose and called them but they were to freely respond to that call not only at the beginning, but throughout the rest of their lives. From Pope St. John Paul II the Great:

            But all faithfulness must pass the most exacting test: that of duration. Therefore the fourth dimension of faithfulness is constancy. It is easy to be consistent for a day or two. It is difficult and important to be consistent for one’s whole life. It is easy to be consistent in the hour of enthusiasm, it is difficult to be so in the hour of tribulation. And only a consistency that lasts throughout the whole of life, can be called faithfulness. Mary’s “fiat” in the Annunciation finds its fullness in the silent “fiat” that she repeats at the foot of the Cross. To be faithful means not betraying in the darkness what one has accepted in public. – HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II. The Cathedral of Mexico City Friday, 26 January 1979

          • Where many make a mistake is here, that even if the Holy Spirit picked a pope [he doesn’t as you have well argued], the said pope could still turn rogue by misusing their free will. Sometimes I do not know where to begin to reply to comments seeing the absence of and lack of grasp of basic premises in them.

          • And God can and does always bring a greater good out of the situation, see the Borgia popes. Even a Buddha statue on top of the tabernacle desecration, it all works for God’s purposes.

          • Hi Fr, RP – Thank You for your response. Those who rely on the Holy Spirit will never contradict the Words of Jesus, nor will they undermine the Sacraments. The Holy Spirit will only inspire the words and actions it can – and both will reflect the unchanging Truths established in the Church in a very clear way. The Holy Spirit guides the Church with clarity, not novelty. Just curious, do you think the Church is headed toward a complete and clearly defined Schism?

          • My opinion doesn’t matter. I have no idea what is coming, other than that the heat in the pressure cooker that is the Post Vatican II Church has been turned up by more than a notch or two recently.

          • That’s because good men chose to do nothing to address the introduction of ambiguity in VII. Too controversial. Those who do point out and reject the ambiguous are ridiculed by even those who consider themselves good priests, concerned only with the promulgation of truth and the feeding of the flock. The fear of losing their faculties – even by way of injustice – successfully hogties those who could otherwise feed a starving flock.

            Combine that with the abolition of the Oath Against Modernism and this scenario was predictable. Like smoke indicating fire. Modernism and pastoral ambiguity was made official. For a guideline not enforced or made unclear is no guideline – or doctrine.

            But while there are those who are called to be the suffering Pio, there are others who are called to be the Athanasius. That’s a suffering, too. And not one that should be derided. Not by anyone. For God uses what means He wills, especially when it comes to feeding His sheep the Truth.

          • Hi Fr. RP – Once again, thank you for your response. When Apostasy rises to the highest levels in our Church, there are no significant notches that remain on the instrument which measures the descent of our Church into Apostasy. The Leaders of our Church are leading many into damnation and not toward the Salvation offered by Jesus Christ on the Cross. The Schism has already occurred, it is now only a question of acknowledging that reality. The Sacramental Church has the guarantee that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against Her, the Institutional Church obviously doesn’t. The divide is between those who fear offending God more than they fear offend men, and those who have no such fear. The wages of sin are death, and no false form of mercy will change that for those who have been deceived into unrepentance for the sins which offend God.

          • Correction, the apostasy STARTED at the highest levels of the Church, this is the Fatima message and so many other warnings ignored and hidden away by the Vatican because of what the message was.

          • Hi JMatthews – I think Francis is the fulfillment of at least one of the chastisements warned of in the third secret. The post Vatican II Popes, before him, have a lot to answer for in opening the door for his arrival, even if they didn’t actively promote apostasy as he does. Father Malachi Martin warned us, during the final years of his life, of what was occurring in the mid 1990’s, how the Church came to be in the position it was in at that time, and, accurately predicted where the Church was heading, and is now, 20 years before it took place. He wasn’t a prophet, but, he was an insider who witnessed what the Church went through at Vatican II, and always analyzed the events that occurred post Vatican II from the perspective of someone who had read the 3rd secret of Fatima. I am glad I had the opportunity to listen to his warnings, at the time he made them, and I am pleased those interviews can still be heard on Youtube.

          • The late Fr. Martin sure nailed it, he said exactly who they (hierarchy in the vatican) were and what they were up to (get their man in) and sure enough they accomplished it (IMO) which is scary because he said that person would be under the complete control of you know who.

            I know of one trad oriented sed blog that loathes the late Fr. Martin accusing him of being a double agent for Jews, a betrayer, and a liar. I have listened to the recordings over and over (I really enjoy them) and I just don’t see that.
            I go back and listen to his interviews again, especially the Bernard Janzen interviews in which he was more detailed because Janzen was interviewing from the perspective of a faithful Catholic rather than a secular non Catholic but all the interviews if you go back today and listen reveal little clues here and there that we are only now witnessing, 20 years later such as with Ukraine and Russia.
            The late Fr. Martin felt something was coming in 2000, a sign in the sky perhaps, an event or the Garabandal warning but it didn’t happen as he thought it might but I could see such events happening now or very soon, he was not a prophet but he read and understood the prophecies which is more than you can say about most Church men today. I asked a French priest recently if he knew what the horrible prophecies for France (which lead to the triumph of the Church btw). He was if not clueless, clearly not concerned. As Saint Thomas Aquinas said “prophecies are not to announce new doctrines but to guide the affairs of men.”

            Pray the rosary and prepare is basically what we can do at this point.

          • Hi J Mathews – Well said. Jesus returns for a reason, and that reason is growing more undeniable with each passing day. When people fear offending men more than they fear offending God, it is just a matter of time before the cup of His Wrath overflows. The Word or the world, chose one or the other, because people only fool themselves if they think they can choose both.

          • Oh the comedy of error! I meant to say: My opinion doesn’t matter…I will edit the above post to make it say what I meant to say in the first place.

    • As Fr. RP says. To put it another way, a papal election is not an infallible act which is prevented against error.

  20. Binding Doctrine filled with errors? You got to be kidding me. The document needs to be sent back to HELL!


    Foot Note 329 of Amoris Laetitia: In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, “it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.” (SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 51)

    Foot Note 329 cites Gaudium et Spes but the passage is QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE IN INVALID UNION. Gaudium et Spes spoke of married Catholics and procreation, not those cohabiting in an invalid union.

    The full sentence is the following:

    “But WHERE THE INTIMACY OF MARRIED LIFE is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.” (Gaudium et Spes, No. 51).

    • Just this alone ought be enough for the Church to be appalled at the Pope and his Exhortation, and for the Church to be outraged by what the pope is trying to pull and in a manner unbecoming of the Vicar of Christ, one called to confirm his brethren.

      What a couple of laity with credentials say as regards this footnote:

      I don’t think the import of AL fn. 329 has quite sunk in yet. – Dr. Edward Peters, 12 April 2016 at 5:19 PM


      Footnote 329 of AL also presents another surreptitious corruption. It cites a passage of Gaudium et Spes 51, concerning the intimacy of married life. But by an undetected sleight of hand it is placed in the mouth of the divorced and remarried instead. Such corruptions surely indicate that references and footnotes, which in this document are made to do some heavy lifting, need to be properly verified. – Dr. Anna M. Silvas

  21. The way I see it is this: Cardinal Schonborn is not the Pope. This is not what I call ‘ex cathedra’. Now, I am just an ordinary Catholic and certainly no Canon Lawyer but if this is a direct infallible teaching from the Pope,I would think the Pope himself would have to proclaim AL ‘infallible’…..publicly. And…..the Pope will NOT DO THIS HIMSELF because he would be gone in an instant. Of course the Pope KNOWS THIS, and has probably sent his ‘errand boy’ to try playing his ‘enforcer’, but it won’t stand. It will only work with those who are of his own modernist mind set. Remember, he just said himself a few days ago that he doesn’t like ‘chopping off heads’, so………..he’ll send one of his hatchet men to do the job, but………it absolutely will not stand as actual Church teaching, because……….it’s NOT Church teaching.

  22. I thought that it was the other way around – which makes sense in the Church guarding received truth: that the new had to be interpreted in light of the old. Thst the magisterium needs to be interpreted by itself.

    For example, when Vatican 2 says that islam is nifty, we must see that in light of a sustained history of the opposite position put forth by centuries of magisterium.

    Isn’t that how it works? And for that matter, isn’t that foundation in magisterium required for excathedra to be excathedra?

  23. It seems to me that the parts of AL which reassert traditional Church teaching are in reality irrevelant, as that is what any Pontifical document would and should do. Yes, these parts should be read in accordance with the traditional teaching. However, the parts of it which depart from Church teaching should be called out for what they are and the faithful should be warned about the ambiguity and confusion they cause, in as much as that might be necessary. Better that most people don’t even know what AL actually says, as they are not used to reading a 260 page Papal document which is badly written and which misquotes misleadingly Vatican II, St. John Paul II and St. Thomas Aquinas. What would happen if we simply ignore it? It might help us avoid confusing people with the sophisticated casuistry which it contains.

    • “However, the parts of it which depart from Church teaching should be called out for what they are and the faithful should be warned about the ambiguity and confusion they cause, in as much as that might be necessary.” better and the duty rather than “What would happen if we simply ignore it?” Because the latter would cause incalculable harm to souls and endanger their salvaltion. Also people would be confused as to what the Church’s real Teaching was.

  24. A statement that contradicts a previous magisterial or conciliar teaching should be rejected and fought.

  25. Archbishop Cupich in Chicago is right in step with all Cardinals like

    Cardinal Schönborn and he has now been elevated in the Church and will make important decisions about which future bishops will be appointed. We are still in danger from within. I am sure these prelates do not read their own tweets unless they are first “filtered” by staff, but I would recommend more one on one contact with these men who dare to think they are smarter than God Himself.

  26. Hey, have y’all picked up on the morphing of the Papacy?

    We no longer have a Dual Papacy limited to B16 and F1, but rather, now, a sort of diabolical Triune Papacy; Pope Emeritus Benedict + Pope Francis + New Age Pope Schoenborn.

    Pretty slick, huh?


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...