Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Catholic Clergy & Scholars Issue “Filial Correction” to Pope, Against “Propagation of Heresies”

For Catholics around the world, the wait continues for the two remaining” Dubia Cardinals” to issue the promised “formal correction” to Pope Francis as regards Amoris Laetitia. Today, however, in what is being described as an “epoch-making act” unlike any taken “since the Middle Ages,” a group of Catholic clergy and lay scholars have taken a similar measure of their own, making public a “Filial Correction” that was first delivered to the pope on August 11th. The occasion of the publication of this document is today’s Feast of Our Lady of Ransom and of Our Lady of Walsingham. Versions of this correctio are now available in English, Spanish, French, and Italian, along with supporting documents and a list of signatories, on a new website created to support this effort: correctiofilialis.org

Anticipating the objection of those who will claim that simple clergy and laymen have no place in correcting a pope, the authors make their purpose clear:

As subjects, we do not have the right to issue to Your Holiness that form of correction by which a superior coerces those subject to him with the threat or administration of punishment (cf. Summa Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4). We issue this correction, rather, to protect our fellow Catholics – and those outside the Church, from whom the key of knowledge must not be taken away (cf. Lk. 11:52) – hoping to prevent the further spread of doctrines which tend of themselves to the profaning of all the sacraments and the subversion of the Law of God.

The letter also takes an unprecedented step, using the word “heresy” in reference not just to possible interpretations of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but also to other recent “words, deeds and omissions” of the pope.

“Most Holy Father,” the letter begins, “With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.” [emphasis added]

The 25-page document, which was delivered with 40 signatures, has continued to garner support while its existence was kept secret from the public, having grown to include 62 members of the clergy and lay scholars from 20 countries around the world. The list of signatories includes well-known names of Catholic leaders, theologians, and authors such as Fr. Linus Clovis, Deacon Nick Donnelly, Christopher Ferrara, Dr. Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, Martin Mosebach, Prof. Roberto de Mattei, Bishop Bernard Fellay, and many more. The authors stress that they will be welcoming additional signatures through a form on their website.

A summary of the document says that these 62 “also represent others lacking the necessary freedom of speech”, calling to mind the recent abrupt dismissal of renowned Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert from his position as the Dietrich von Hildebrand Chair at the International Academy of Philosophy in Granada, Spain after he publicized some respectful questions about Amoris Laetitia. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, one of only a few outspoken champions of Catholic teaching amongst the global episcopacy, described Seifert’s firing as “not only unjust, but … ultimately an escape from truth”. For his part, Seifert has had to take both canonical and civil legal action to fight his summary dismissal without cause – actions which signatories of the correctio could also be forced to take in the event they face similar disciplinary action in retaliation for their involvement.

The full title of the document is Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis, which is translated as “A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies.” It states, according to the authors, “that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.”

This correction is comprised of three parts:

First, there an explanation from the signatories as to why they have “the right and duty” to “issue such a correction to the supreme pontiff.” They emphasize that this correction does not come into conflict with the dogma of papal infallibility, because the pope “has not declared these heretical positions to be definitive teachings of the Church, or stated that Catholics must believe them with the assent of faith.”

Second, there is the “correction” itself. In this section, the passages of Amoris Laetitia are listed “in which heretical positions are insinuated or encouraged”; also listed are “words, deeds, and omissions of Pope Francis which make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that he wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical.”

Third, there is the “elucidation,” which examines more deeply the roots of the present situation. “One cause,” write the authors, “is ‘Modernism’. Theologically speaking, Modernism is the belief that God has not delivered definite truths to the Church, which she must continue to teach in exactly the same sense until the end of time.” The authors insist that because of the great confusion that follows from Modernism’s presence in the Church, the signatories are obliged to “describe the true meaning of ‘faith’, ‘heresy’, ‘revelation’, and ‘magisterium’.” The authors go on in the “elucidation” of the correctio to focus in a particular way on the influence of the thought of the arch-heretic Martin Luther on the pontificate of Pope Francis.

The passages from Amoris Laetitia giving rise to the greatest harm are listed, along with several other “words, deeds, and omissions” of the pope which “in conjunction with these passages of Amoris laetitia are serving to propagate heresies within the Church”. These include:

  • The refusal of the pope to answer the dubia
  • The intervention of Pope Francis in the Relatio post disceptationem for the Extraordinary Synod on the Family to include proposals for Holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics “despite the fact that they did not receive the two-thirds majority required by the Synod rules for a proposal to be included in the Relatio.”
  • The papal interview of April 2016, in which a journalist asked if there were any new “concrete possibilities for the divorced and remarried” as a result of Amoris Laetitia, and to which the pope responded, “I can say yes. Period.” [Readers can view our translated video of that exchange here.] Also mentioned here were related statements of Cardinal Cristoph Schönborn, who was given the unofficial role of interpreting Amoris Laetitia by the pope, and who affirmed that in “certain cases” the pope intended “the help of the sacraments” for people in these situations.
  • The letter of Pope Francis affirming the guidelines of the Bishops of the Buenos Aires’ region, which “offers the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist” in “a specific case” “when a declaration of nullity has not been obtained” and “there are limitations that mitigate responsibility and culpability”. Of these guidelines, the pope wrote, “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”

Several other examples of papal actions that support these same interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, allowing communion for those living in an objectively adulterous situation, were also listed.

The authors then turn to the seven “false and heretical propositions” that have been promoted within the Church. They insist that they, and the signatories who have joined them, “do not not venture to judge the degree of awareness with which Pope Francis has propagated the 7 heresies which they list.” It is the purpose of their correction, however, to “respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld.”

The seven propositions of the correctio itself, though issued in Latin, have also been translated by the authors as follows:

By these words, deeds, and omissions, and by the above-mentioned passages of the document Amoris laetitia, Your Holiness has upheld, directly or indirectly, and, with what degree of awareness we do not seek to judge, both by public office and by private act propagated in the Church the following false and heretical propositions:

1). ‘A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin.’

2). ‘Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live more uxorio with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity.’

3). ‘A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action.’

4). ‘A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience.’

5). ‘Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God.’

6). ‘Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object.’

7). ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it.’

For each of these propositions, citations are given from both Scripture and the Church’s magisterium documenting where they come into conflict with Catholic teaching. “These propositions” the authors write, “all contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith.”

The authors conclude the correctio as true sons of the Church:

At this critical hour, therefore, we turn to the cathedra veritatis, the Roman Church, which has by divine law pre-eminence over all the churches, and of which we are and intend always to remain loyal children, and we respectfully insist that Your Holiness publicly reject these propositions, thus accomplishing the mandate of our Lord Jesus Christ given to St Peter and through him to all his successors until the end of the world: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

It is difficult to predict what, if any, impact this correctio will have on a papacy that has steadfastly ignored a previous filial appeal with nearly 800,000 signatures, the circulation of a theological censures document authored by 45 theologians and scholars amongst the entire college of cardinals, and the five dubia presented by four cardinals who have, as yet, not been able to even obtain a papal audience over a year after their initial intervention and in the wake of the deaths of two of their number.

Nevertheless, the language used in this latest document advances the case further than anything that came before it, and some speculate that it may help establish that the pope is guilty of public and notorious material heresy. If so, his failure to respond could be an important step in determining that the pope is “incorrigible and pertinacious” in the promotion of heresy, and possibly trigger additional remedial actions further down the road.

593 thoughts on “Catholic Clergy & Scholars Issue “Filial Correction” to Pope, Against “Propagation of Heresies””

  1. I couldn’t get the link to work, but maybe that’s really a positive sign—too much Internet traffic!

    Interesting that there’s nothing but dampening naysaying over at the guttony/simony page.

    Reply
  2. I was expecting an actual physical earthquake (a major one), say in Rome or the eruption of that volcano (unexpected, massive eruption) outside of Naples. But perhaps the same thing has just happened only in a spiritual sense.

    Reply
  3. Bergoglio has known about it for several weeks now, but surely he never thought anyone would dare to openly and publicly charge him with the heresies that constantly stream from his lips.

    Thanks be to God and to Mama Maria that this day has arrived.

    Reply
    • With powerful NWO behind he thought his combined Gestapo, Stasi, Red China Secret Police and KGB tactic of intimating and blackmailing works very well that most cardinals, bishops and even priests have been shut up like sheep who’re coward to stand up for Jesus’ teachings and Church’s doctrines. Thank You, God for exposing evils of heretical pope and his minions and strengthening those righteous people. Mary, Mother of the Church and all saints pray for us.

      Reply
      • I expect this to be ignored like the other attempts and the signers to be vilified and perhaps punished as this is what happens in this infiltrated Vatican these days.

        Reply
    • true, by citizen journalists…aka the LAITY…must continue to pry free an illicit cardinal elector from the excommunicated cabal that elected Cardinal Bergoglio. Did Cardinal Law know about it? How active was Theodore McCarrick in the ILLICIT pre-conclave agreement that led to Pope Francis’ election? How about the Germans? What does Cardinal Muller know about this that he hasn’t said??????

      Reply
    • And do what? I don’t understand what some people think Cardinal Burke or Emeritus Benedetto can do – they can do nothing. The Holy Spirit is leading the Church, this is all being done by the ‘permissive will” of God; our duty is to pray and do penance and trust. It’s not ours to understand, just trust and keep faith.

      Reply
      • Cardinal Burke needs to do what he said he was going to do almost a year ago. I wrote him and got a letter back saying, “I assure you that I am doing everything I can to protect and defend Holy Mother Church.”

        I’m still trying to figure out what he means. It would be unseemly to contradict him since I have no idea what he’s doing except I am certain he bears a very heavy cross.

        It would be a lot easier for him to proceed with his formal correction now that the ice has been broken. It would be folly for Bergoglio to punish him while the remaining thousands of his critics go free. We must all pray for Cardinal Burke and flood the Pope’s twitter account with as much vitriol as we can post. He must be made to know just how much he is reviled by the faithful followers of Jesus Christ.

        Reply
        • No. no vitriol, that is not what Christ wants. Be polite always. He is the Pope even if he’s a bad pope. We should act like Christ before Caiphais.

          Reply
          • Well that’s one way to look at it, but if he’s a bad pope, and he is, I have no reason to show any respect him. He has no respect for Christ; he throws Christ’s Gospel behind him and substitutes his own. In short, he may be the pope, but he is not the Vicar of Christ. If faithful Catholics keep treating as if he is, he will never have any incentive to reform himself.

            The alternative to Christ before Caiaphas is Christ before the money changers.

          • Be careful. We have to tread the line between not following the teachings of a bad pope, but remaining united to the Papacy and showing respect to the office no matter what we think of the creature occupying it.

            Satan is clever: the unwary he wishes to trap by following heresies promoted by a bad pope; the more canny he tries to trap by self-righteousness, and tempts to separate themselves from unity with the successor of Peter.

            We have to carefully avoid both extremes, and warn those souls entrusted to our care to do the same.

          • I appreciate your following the teachings of the Church, but
            “showing respect to the office no matter what we think of the creature occupying it” is abstract. In reality it’s close to impossible to show respect for the office without having that respect bleed off onto the occupant. Satan is clever enough to know that. How can we be unified with the successor of Peter when that individual has separated himself from the Chair, from the Church and from Christ Himself? We must be ‘clever’ enough to understand that and act accordingly.

          • “Close to impossible”, but with God’s grace nothing is impossible.
            I don’t need to be “clever” if I say the rosary every day –The Holy Spirit will not allow one who obeys the requests of Our Lady of Fatima to be deceived.
            PS: I also have a degree in Theology, but I trust this less than Our Lady to guide me in discernment in these evil times when it is easy to be more Catholic than the Pope . . . .:-)

    • I caught wind of a rumor from a couple of trustworthy second-hand sources and all I will say is this… wait until Oct. 13.

      I would like to clarify here that I have no part in the news or editing of articles here, so my information is not 1P5’s information.

      Reply
  4. A handful of priests, a SSPX bishop plus the usual group of lay activists. I like it but it’s really no more than nuisance value to Francis.

    I’m wondering if this was actually written in frustration at the non-appearance of the long-promised formal correction from the dubia cardinals. It worries me rather than consoles me.

    Reply
    • I’m trying to be optimistic for what it’s worth. My hope is that this move will do two things:

      1. Encourage Cardinal Burke to issue his formal correction, which is what will carry the real weight as it would be a member of the college of cardinals protesting, rather than laymen and ordinary priests.

      2. Put Francis/Bergoglio on the defensive now that this is out in the public sphere. If he retaliates against any of the signatories, he has to worry about the optics of no longer looking like the “merciful pope”, but instead of looking like a petulant child who cannot stand being challenged. Granted, we already know he is the latter, but now there’s a spotlight trained on him that even the “conservative” head in the sand crowd in the Catholic media can’t ignore.

      Reply
      • I think it will certainly show him that intimidation does not work. A bully’s biggest asset is the power of intimidation.
        Professor Seifert’s gravely unjust dismissal by one of Bergoglio’s goons was quite possibly an attempt to intimidate the signatories from going forward with the publication. Who knows if there is a connection, but is certainly fits Bergoglio’s Modus operandi.

        Reply
      • Another sign for encouragement is I believe this is the first time so many prominent men have utter the word heresy in relation to Francis. I think just that is major breakthrough.

        Reply
    • true, the Pope’s power is unassailable. He even has power over civil governments, able to de-legitimize them if they deserve it, as Pope John Paul II did to the Russian puppet government in Poland when he went there the first time.
      But this is the only action that can be taken. It’s a chip taken off the statue that makes it look unseemly. It’s all that can be done now. Obviously, Pope Francis treats it just as you say, a fly-speck on the window. But, please read my comment above, it MAY CAUSE an illicit cardinal elector, or McCarrick or Law, or Muller, to break down and confess that they know about the illicit cabal that elected Bergoglio. That’s what really needs to happen. The code of silence MUST BE BROKEN…the vow of silence cannot supersede this EMERGENCY situation.

      Reply
  5. Maybe I’ll think higher of this in the coming days, but this seems like a bit of a letdown. These are things that have been said over and over again, both to and about Pope Francis. Anyway, I’m afraid the only thing that will relieve this situation will come as a thief in the night.

    Reply
    • like got rid of flaky Pope John-Paul I ? – a sleeping potion in his evening glass of wine…air bubbles shot up between his toes (yes there was an inspection of the body)…an ultra-right French cardinal arrested and died while under “house arrest” in the Vatican, Cardinal Villot by name, the Sec. of State at the time. This is what keeps the Levebre SSPX group from being reconciled! Please don’t wish for anything like that.

      Reply
      • The Remnant Newspaper explains it in an article titled “Apocalypse Now Another Great Sign Rises in the Heavens.” September 23, 2017 is the date for this very unusual sign. Read Revelation 12 too.

        Reply
        • Right at her feet, where we see it in all the statues. And God bless the Dimond brothers. They catch heavy criticism but their videos stand out as excellent, thoroughly well researched and highly entertaining. I highly recommend their video on magic.

          Reply
          • Keep very far away from the Dimond brothers. So what if they have some good videos, they will still drag you down to hell with them.

          • I’m far away from the Dimond brothers as from any sedevacantist. As far as I can tell they don’t believe there has been a pope since Gregory was supposedly elected pope, this is what sedevacantists believe and heaven forbid anyone get sucked into that. That said, their videos, the ones I have watched are excellent presentations and in no way against the faith that I have seen. By their fruits you shall know them and their videos are not at all rotten. By the way, I unfortunately know several novus ordo priests here in Florida in perfectly good standing with the Church, about whom I could tell you exactly the same thing “keep very far away from..”
            The wolves are everywhere today and by their fruits you shall know them.

          • Glad to hear that, but we need to be aware that there are many readers here who have never heard of the Dimond brothers and their sedevacantist outfit who might get seduced by them by means of their slick videos.

          • As I said, I know several novus ordo priests here in Florida who are in perfect standing with the Church whom I can and do avoid them like the plague. Point is, you have to watch everywhere today. Gone are the days when you can say “they’re outside the Church”, because unfortunately there is more ROT inside the Church today than almost anywhere else. It wasn’t but two months ago we had a drug fueled gay sodomite orgy busted at the vatican. By their fruits you shall know them and the videos the Dimond Bros make are not all rotten, I’m not following them or signing up for whatever they’re nor am I signing up for what gay orgy people in Rome and the like are selling.

          • It’s a sign which is flexible, but always means “passing things” because the moon “changes”. Evil in every form will “pass away” because the woman seed of the woman / will trample the head of the serpent. In history, we have the apocalyptic image of Our Lady of Guadalupe with a black moon beneath her feet. In the cruel Aztec culture, the crescent was the symbol of “the Feathered Serpent” god who demanded human sacrifice. (good image for Satan!) Islam’s symbol is the crescent moon. In Islamic symbolism black is a “despised” colour (why Muslim women mostly wear black burkas) and strangely, Our Lady is wearing a shoe as she treads the crescent– Muslims remove shoes before worshipping in a Mosque, so Our Lady is insulting Islam good and proper.
            The USSR’s symbol was a hammer and sickle, and the sickle was a prominent crescent. Our Lady, destroyer of all heresies, treads all crescent symbols under her feet, from Aztec, Islam, and Communist sources. So the Crescent is shorthand for both Satan and evil.

    • Yes, it was!!!
      The birth of the King planet from the Virgin’s womb. We’ve been following it along for weeks now. This alignment of planets happened 7000 years ago.

      Reply
        • Go to the Vatican Observatory website. They have an article posted that details the past four alignments that most closely resemble today’s Rev 12 ‘sign’, but Venus, Mercury and Mars are somewhat amiss, as are the sun and moon. They have gone back 1,000 years.

          Reply
          • I don’t trust them, sorry, they name telescopes after lucifer, they’re not worthy of the trust of the Catholic faithful.

          • Not until they can provide an explanation for why they have a telescope on Mt Graham named “lucifer”. There is no possible way to justify this,

          • John, It is my understanding that the telescope is not owned by the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church did not have “naming rights” that go along with ownership. But at the same time, I am not sure that is an adequate defense. I hope I would say, “Thank you very much, but we want no association with your group/ organization because of that name.”

          • The Jesuits horned in on the building of the U. of Arizona’s Mt Graham observatory despite legal controversy over building on disputed tribal lands, also the habitat of an endangered species of squirrel.
            Malachi Martin warned about them on Mt Graham before he died 16+ years ago. They’re hiding something; they know something we don’t and are acting on Vatican orders.

          • Fr Malachi Martin said he himself didn’t know, but that the higher echelons of the Vatican knew “something was coming” so they wanted to watch the skies with state-of-the-art technology.

            Many prophecies speak of “a comet” which will scourge the earth. Some people currently speak of “alien deception” possibly from “UFO” beings who would manifest as “benevolent” but that are demons in disguise.

          • I notice that the Jesuit astronomers on Mt Graham dismiss “the great sign” on their blog as “having happened before” completely ignoring the unique fact that Jupiter stays in the womb of Virgo for the length of a long normal pregnancy. (Nothing to see here, move along).
            Interestingly, they do not permit any comments for this to be pointed out.
            Stellarium is an astronomy programme that simply shows planetary motions past or future, and it is a good tool. With it, you don’t have to take the word of a Jesuit to see whether the “Great Sign” of 23 September 2017 symbolically fulfils Rev 12:1-2 or not.

          • I agree, I was expecting… something. I do wonder if the correction is the start of the counter revolution? Are you aware of anything else? Of course we’re nearing 13th Oct. Surely something big is going to happen.
            Viva Cristo Rey!
            Peter

          • The first thing is the prophecy hardly ever looks like whatever we expect when it’s fulfilled, but I must say that I thought – and still think – that the filial correction is huge, and the beginning of the Restoration 🙂

            On Saturday, when I saw the headlines, my eyes nearly popped out of my head!

          • Yes, and – I just re-read the article – on the feast day of Our Lady of Walsingham (I live in England) and Our Lady of Ransom. Amazing how the events tie in. Keep praying the Rosary and I’m hoping that the world changes before we get chastised, trying to get my head around it all. Viva Cristo Rey
            Peter

          • I read the Vatican Observatory website on this matter and basically debunked their scepticism of “there are no signs in the sky”. The dates they suggested were ridiculous and not remotely like yesterday’s alignments which were truly amazing. But I daresay the Vat Obs is as full of cretins (Jesuits?) as elsewhere in the Church.

        • That’s interesting… if you go by a very… hmmm… neither “traditional” nor “fundamentalist seems the right word here, but that should give an idea… a very non-evolutionary at all creation of the world account (more or less literal Genesis 1 creation account) then the world would be about 6000-7000 years old… very very interesting…

          Reply
          • And this is where things get beyond my comprehension…yet, is there a debate regarding the veracity of the tools and methods we use to date things?

          • I don’t follow your reasoning. REV. 12 has nothing to do with Genesis, at least not directly. The traditional Catholic teaching is that Rev. 12 concerns Mary, queen of heaven and earth and the birth of Jesus who the devil has bern trying to devour all this time — and, if Francis succeeds in his heresies and unraveling the moral law resulting in the collapse of belief in God, the dragon will, effectively, have won. Of course, we trust in God and His promises.

          • Revelation is linked to Genesis though the “Protoevangelium” . The woman / seed of the woman who crushed the head of the ancient serpent. The crescent moon beneath our lady’s feet (as I have said elsewhere) , is historically a symbol of Satan and evil in this context.

          • I’m just making a connection not based on scripture. Simply pointing out the timing of, from what we know, when Adam was created, and the fact that this sign in heaven hasn’t occurred since then… until now.

          • It goes back quite a ways. I think it comes from counting generations in Scripture. I know it’s not a foolproof way, but 6000-7000 years before the current day was generally agreed upon by the church fathers for the time since Adam (obviously 4000-5000 for them).

          • How then do we account for the fact that there is accurate scientific data, which testifies through genetic testing, carbon dating and archeological finds, that our species goes back at least 20,000 years?

          • Yup. True, but it may be more accurate than the strained calculations I’ve seen. It is far less important when and even how Adam was created than knowing that, regardless of the when and how, Almighty God is the creator and source of all that has been, is and will be.

          • Yes, after all He has all eternity. Its not like he’s going to be fired or demoted for being “too slow.” I personally see no conflict between believing God is the creator and accepting the possible/probable validity of evolution (with the caveat that I reject Stephen Hawkings assertion that all that is can be explained without God).

          • But there’s the problem. Statements are made (we’ve all done it) that read like assertions, but without verifiable evidence and which are also outside the deposit of faith. In all of my theological studies I’ve never come across a reliable Catholic source which claimed when Adam was created. The only such claims I’ve ever seen have been from evangelical protestant writers who also claim God put the dinosaur bones in the ground to test us. However, doing so would make God deceitful and, therefore, a liar — which is impossible. From what I know, the Catholic Church has always said she doesn’t know when Adam was created, that the calculations of Holy Scripture are vague and inaccurate at best because they may merely be a literary tool rather than giving specific data. In fact, the Church’s own biblical scholars prior to Vatican 2 have said the creation stories in Genesis are largely allegorical rather than factual. After all, the human authors of the bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
            The books they wrote were not dictated to them. Thus, with all the above, I tend to be skeptical when someone claims creation occurred X number of years in the past.

      • But not exactly, and not as perfectly. Whatever else this great sign means, it tells us “You are here” located in the Apocalypse.

        Reply
      • In all seriousness, I think the authors should set up a means of allowing Catholics all over the world to sign this, attaching their name, parish, and diocese, state of life, and means of employment.

        Reply
        • I personally think it’s better to allow only legitimate clergy, theologians, and scholars to sign it… To allow everyone to sign it would make it sort of a popularity campaign.

          Now, a parallel petition of some sort, either initiated by the group or another entity that can be signed by anyone saying “We support this correction” is something I could get on board with.

          Reply
          • Yes, I agree. Maybe we should all contact Dr. Shaw asking him to start a separate petition for Catholics every where to express their support for the correction.

          • I doubt any number would be enough. We need faithful cardinals and bishops to have the courage to make a formal correction and with so many lukewarm ones and newer and old ones supporting the changes, that will be difficult to find more than a few and those ones will be persecuted, demoted, exiled, etc. as some saints have been. We need the Lord to step in and see about cleaning up the filth inHis Church.

          • I think it’s important that this correction has first humbly started at the laity level…intandem with the Dubia….maybe this has been the plan all along…who knows…imho…somewhere in this Pope Emeritus will say something

    • Two. He can either repent and accept the correction or else persist in his heresy in which case he is a manifest and formal heretic.

      Reply
      • I don’t know what canon law says about how to remove a Pope. Anybody? I don’t think it can be done. He must die somehow. Maybe there’s another alternative. But it’s what the ultra-orthodox did to flaky Pope John Paul I…he was “eclipsed” in a month.

        Reply
          • No, the Pope belongs in Rome (as in “bishop of”).

            The 70-year long Avignon Papacy has been seen as “the Babylonian exile” of the Church, and God raised up two saints (Brigitta of Sweden & Catherine of Siena) to pry a reluctant Pope from sunny, civilised France and prod him back to dangerous, nasty old Rome where he belonged.

            The history of the Church is just as weird and messy as the history of the chosen people in the Old Testament.

        • Can i ask why you keep calling him flaky? I read that he
          was fairly determined carry out the Consecration of
          Russia correctly with all the bishops and early in his
          Papacy at that and that’s why he was “eclipsed”.
          The Modernists were less than thrilled.

          Reply
          • only because of his goofy smile, riding a bicycle to places in Rome, and only eating a walnut at a banquet – superficial stuff like that. You comment is very much appreciated.

  6. How much worse will it get? He has to be a false Pope, or Anti-pope or something horrible and unholy. God help us. We need the Holy Spirit to help us discern what is going on here.

    Reply
    • Well he will either humbly accept the correction, in which case his wicked agenda of false mercy runs aground, or else he will persist in his heresy, and thereby showing himself to be a formal heretic, in which case his “mercy agenda” again comes a cropper.
      Either way he loses. At least with the first option he gets to save his soul.

      Reply
      • He’s a ideologue. A “Party Man”. A “True Believer”, see? This we have to get solid in order to understand where he’s coming from.

        He thinks these orthodox critics are just dinosaurs who work overtime to KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THE CHURCH, and in that he’s like all the other “Spirit of Vatican II” types who think the same. They “don’t get it”. And (this is important), these guys are tasting victory. Insane, but true. They think they’re on the verge of separating us forever from the Church when they, themselves, have only managed to have done that to themselves. Like Jack Lewis’ Screwtape, everything black is white and vice-versa. Thus they sense they are winning. We Trads, in turn, see ’em as heretics, rank heretics, who empty churches and are a bane to the Faith. But they see us a “Pharisees” and could care less what we do or say. They’ve got us cornered, and on the run. They believe that with every fiber, soul and body.

        In other words, they’ll never see themselves as heretics. EVER. Just won’t happen. The technical term might well be for them “Invincible Ignorance”. They’ll go to their graves convinced they’re right and we’re wrong. WE operate from daily experience: we see disaster all around us yet experience in the TLM and the Traditional Pieties young, large families attending, and refreshing piety and uplifting sanctity, and so on. They cannot “apprehend” (to use the technical philosophical term) such reality.

        Raghn Corvinus

        Reply
        • Invincible ignorance has a strong element of naivety in it, because of a the mental capacity to understand the question. No, they’re Jesuits, the brightest guys in the room. This is a case of “sin blinding the sinner” and don’t think they don’t know what they’re doing. they are working for the devil (who works through the Freemasons and the NWO) to destroy the church from within, so that its bureaucracy & prestige can be used to set up for the next Antichrist.

          Reply
  7. only ONE EXPLANATION can account for the present situation: and that is that the regulations for the conclave that elected Cardinal Bergoglio were broken, specifically, the prohibition under pain of de-facto excommunication of pre-conclave cabals or cadres of voters. Much evidence exists that such cabals or cadres did exist and did select Cardinal Bergoglio to be their candidate…these votes by excommunicated cardinals are illicit. Furthermore, if the NUMBER of illicit votes for Bergoglio are what determined his election…then Pope Francis was INVALIDLY elected, and is not really the Pope. This, to my mind, is the ONLY cloth that fits the figure. These cabal cardinals must come forth and repent. Francis must resign and a new conclave be convened under the Blessing of Pope Benedict XVI. If that scenario does not occur…GOD HELP US.

    Reply
    • It’s more than just the votes of the certain cardinals that were made invalid. JPII’s regs made any election which involved such collusion null and void without need of a declaration of nullity.

      Reply
    • Mortimer, I’ve been thinking along those lines for four years now and wonder why brighter lights than I in the Church have been comatose in response. I pray this new initiative will wake enough of them to start a movement designed to get rid of Francis the Heretic and his stooges. Enough is enough!

      Reply
      • It was really thought provoking. I can’t understand why it is not being more widely discussed. Not being a scholar on these intricacies, undoubtedly there are some flaws in Bishop Gracida’s argument, but there is so much that is, undoubtedly as well, firmly grounded. His site is overlooked. It is profoundly thought provoking.
        Were a man of integrity to be in Francis’ shoes — the “shoes of the Fisherman” no less, he would step aside. In not doing so he manifests his hunger for personal power. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to see the subterfuge that is being boldly played out before our eyes.

        Reply
    • as bergoglio was part of the notorious st.gallen gay mafia cabal he also incurred automatic excommunication !.. how can an excommunicated cleric be validly elected pope? ..gays do like to masquerade ! Our lady warned that marxist/leninism would spread thoughout the whole world, which we now know includes even the top echelons of the Church.

      Reply
          • Your reasoning is mistaken. Firstly, he COULD have been their choice without him knowing they were going to try to elect him… they just work to make it happen. He wouldn’t necessarily have to know about the plotting. The votes come in, he’s elected, and knowing his disposition, they know he would accept the election.

            Secondly, the article you cited isn’t particularly credible. First of all, it appears to be a first draft of something being assembled, with many paragraphs repeating the exact same information in a slightly different manner. If this is a final product, then some doubt should be placed on the writer’s ability to understand the document being studied (in this case UDG.) Further doubt is shed by the writer’s own admission that he is not a canon lawyer, and is just assembling information from what they read, without any particular training. That makes my or your reading just as weighty. The entire underlying assumption here is that paragraph 76 relates to those things immediately following. However, it is clear from the format of UDG that it actually refers specifically to the chapter in which it is included, specifically Chapter 5: The Election Procedure. It does not refer to Chapter VI: Matters to be Observed or Avoided in the Election of the Roman Pontiff.

            As for whether a Cardinal who is placed under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae can validly participate in the election of a pope, I understand that they actually can. I may be mistaken and if anyone can point to me a valid canonical document that specifies this, please do.

            The point is, as far as we can tell, and this has been discussed ad nauseam here in the comboxes over various articles that Benedict XVI validly resigned and Pope Francis was validly elected, appeals to the Sankt-Gallen mafia notwithstanding. The argument that such invalidated the election does not hold up to serious scrutiny.

          • ‘no one initiates a campaign without the consent of the candidate; it would be to accuse “team bergoglio” of insanity, to hold that they did not ask for a sign to indicate his willingness’ https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/the-great-reformer-francis-and-the-making-of-a-radical-pope/

            the validity of the election of an excommunicated cardinal (close friend since 2001of recently deceased “team bergoglio” leader cardinal murphy-o’connor) isn’t dependent upon the validity/invalidity of benedict’s resignation, a strawman argument.

    • I just don’t see how this can be ignored and denied any more
      (and yeah, surely God IS helping us! …or else we’d be toast by now).
      Pray for all the souls harmed / lost by apostasy of others.

      Reply
    • Everyone commenting on this needs to go read Pope John Paul II’s regulations for a conclave Universi Dominici Gregis. Those who form cadre’s are to be punished with a just punishment but it does not invalidate the election. The ONLY thing that invalidate’s the election is a break in the procedure (basically something weird goes on with the ballots.) Even simony and the “purchase” of the papacy does not invalidate the election. On top of it, even if there are a large number of latae sententiae excommunicated cardinals, their votes in the election actually still count (weird I know.) So this theory simply doesn’t pan out.

      I know it would make everything easier, for us as Catholic laity, for the clergy, and prelates if Francis wasn’t pope. But, instead of concocting theories to make it so that MAYBE Francis isn’t pope, we should spend our energy and time deciding what to do since he IS.

      Reply
      • Jafin, isn’t the problem with your first point one of morale? I mean, IF the law says X is bad, punishable, etc., because it is SO bad, but even if X occurred, the Y that resulted from it is STILL valid, then everyone would ask (those who remotely care about this, of course) WHY HAVE a law like that? It’s a joke. Public Relations-speaking: we look like Keystone Kops. In other words, it is just more grit in the gears of believers, making belief ever more difficult, and more grease for unbelievers, to make their unbelief easier.

        And thus isn’t this yet another example of JPII (him and/or his staff) having been egregiously bad Church leaders?

        As for your second excellent point, what CAN we do? The men signing this new protest, as the case with the previous ones, are just ignored, shoved aside, fired, whatever. The S.S. Bergoglio just keeps steaming full speed into the shoal water.

        Raghn Corvinus

        Reply
      • We need to say the rosary, 5 first Saturdays according to Fatima message. Our Lady said there was NOTHING that couldn’t be accomplished for good through the Rosary.
        This will get us and the Church through.

        Reply
      • citations would really be appreciated. Maybe we can see a whole well-written piece on the validity of the election of Pope Francis.

        Reply
        • I have no desire to write such a piece, nor do I have the credentials or training to make a fully fleshed out argument. Just do the research yourself and go read UDG.

          Reply
          • Universi Dominici Gregis

            Here’s a relevant quote to start from…

            76. Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.

            77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the resignation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

            CHAPTER VI

            MATTERS TO BE OBSERVED OR AVOIDED IN THE ELECTION
            OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF

            78. If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.23

            79. Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him…

    • On the afternoon of March 13, 2013, I was engaged with a long term client. My clientele would be considered the 1% of the 1%. Extremely wealthy and well connected.
      I needed to grab something from my office and when I returned I found my client on the phone. Although the conversation was hushed and pensive it was made clear that there was no need for me to leave.
      From my end, the conversation can only be described as nervously anticipatory. There were whispers and then pauses and then an extended silence. This silence ended with a relief filled exclamation of “YES,YES,YES!!!!!!!!”
      The call ended and I asked what all the excitement was about.
      The reply was ” Bergoglio is the new Pope!”
      Since neither my client nor the caller, who is very well known in certain circles, are Christian, I was stunned.
      I asked my client, a self professed albeit “jokingly” atheist and communist, why the concern/interest?
      The reply was “oh, we just like to follow these things. Now, let’s get to work.”
      Was I made privy to an innocent, benign conversation regarding the election of our new Pope or was I inadvertently given a glimpse into something more telling and foreboding?
      My gut always felt it was the later.

      Reply
    • They will strike back in a passive aggressive duplicitous manner. Predictions:
      1) Double speak – In one breath they will claim that pope hasn’t promoted any of the heresies listed and then in the next breath promote said heresies.

      2) People will be demoted or transferred as punishment.

      3.) Straw man arguments – They will misrepresent what the letter said to paint it in the worst possible light.

      4.) Name calling – call the authors of the letter racist, bigots, rigid, etc

      Any other predictions?

      Reply
      • Francis’ flying monkeys [Rosica, Spadaro, Maradiaga et al., ] will go on the offensive, big time.

        Meanwhile, Francis will pout and play the part of the put-upon merciful one, who’s been unfairly attacked.

        Reply
      • How about all faithful Catholics pray abstain fast for the intention that Francis has a change of heart and that the Emeritus Pope speak up in support of this correction and the Dubia

        Reply
      • “Any other predictions ?”

        Easy : Silence.

        Just you watch ! The Vatican won’t respond to it, the media won’t report it, Catholics worlwide will remain unaware. Nothing will happen.

        Reply
        • The Vatican has already not responded as is the case with the dubia and every other communication addressed to Francis that hints of criticism or being unfavorable. In fact, I doubt he even received the Correctio or the dubis. He probably left instructions with the “palace guards” that he doesn’t want to even hear about anything negative about him or his psuedo-papacy (I use this term because I, personally, believe he is an antichrist antipope.

          Reply
          • The poor guy who “was resigned” from the Vatican bank said he was never granted a requested audience with the Pope. He can’t say more because of secrecy agreements he made, but it’s obvious the Pope has conveniently isolated himself with “deniability” protections.

    • Absolutely right but at least they have called out once again and in the meantime the crowds in Rome will continue to diminish as this regime falls further into irrelevance

      Reply
  8. I’ve read some of the comments here from people thinking this effort at a correction is useless. First, the signatories are acting according to their status and duty. It is irrelevant whether a formal correction from the Cardinals follows or not. Second, a public, common condemnation has more weight than any individual criticism. The lot of them have already faced opposition from their bosse or bishops. They’ve done their duty.

    Reply
    • Great point. At the very least we know that Christ, the Church, the faith, the flock, have been defended. We can turn our eyes to our church leaders and rightly ask, will you now do what you are obliged to do by your vow and vocation?

      Reply
    • It IS true that this correction holds no canonical weight and has no teeth… but teeth aren’t the point of it. The point is to correct the errors and hope the pope takes it to heart. So yes, these men have done their duty.

      Reply
      • If the letter is right, and I think it is, Bergoglio has been gravely accused to be in heresy and he did not respond to the accusation. That is a schism, de facto. This is not mind games. This have consequences. I repeat my question: what should we do now?

        Reply
        • It is not a schism. A schism is when a jurisdiction is established which is not in uniuon with the See of Rome.
          Please, let’s not jump to rash conclusions and instead just continue with the Rosary and staying in a state of grace.

          Reply
          • Anyone who agrees with the letter is making a judgement and an act of jurisdiction that reach his conscience and his acts, and those of in charge, like children.
            I repeat: this is not mind games, nor academics. I agree with the letter, and that means that I cant obbey him or recognize his authority or pray for him as Pope.

          • JCC, you can pray for Francis’ repentance and his conversion AND you can pray that God’s will be done. No, it is not mind games. No, it is not academics. My suggestion is to put the entire matter on the shelf: you don’t have to make any snap decisions this very moment as to what to do (or not do) OR what to say (or not say). I would get some rest, pray, let the reality settle in mentally and emotionally AND then when I was in a calmer frame of mind and emotion …. then I would consider all of the options. Sometimes 24 hours makes all the difference in the world.

        • I think we do what we always do: read Scripture, pray the rosary, do our devotions, read spiritual classics, go to mass, go to Confession, partake in the Eucharist, teach our children the Catholic faith, volunteer to lead that Bible study, whatever we are called to do.

          Yes, I believe this will have consequences, but I don’t think we will know exactly what those will be until they actually unfold. We can speculate. We can guess. We will know what we are to do at the proper time. The Lord does not abandon his people. Really, He does not.

          Reply
          • OK. That is my first question. What should I say to my children about this man? If he is heretic, and now he is, he is not the Pope anymore. Now I have decisions to make according to my state. I am infantry. I need orders and a map.

          • JCC, I think what you say depends upon the age of your children and what they already know or don’t know. If you have teenagers, it will be a very different conversation than if you have grade school children or children even younger. So what you say will need to be age-appropriate.

            The first thing I would do is pray to Our Lord and Our Lady (as a married couple) and ask for guidance and direction. What do we say or not say? What do we do or not do? I would ask for wisdom and discernment. The next thing I would do is have a private talk with my spouse. The two of you know your children better than anyone else — what they would understand, what is their temperament, etc.

            The next logical step is to find out what your children know (or don’t know):
            what have they heard about the Pope at Church? or on the news/ TV? or from other kids or adults?
            Then you might ask your children why they think we have a pope (what is his job/ role) and ask what are their thoughts and feelings about him? Do they like him? do they trust him? Is he doing a good job? Why or why not?

            Based on the answers you get from your kids, I think you will know what to say/ do. I don’t think I would come right out and say that the pope is a heretic. I wouldn’t. (Do your kids even know what that means?) And I don’t think I would say that he is no longer the pope. I wouldn’t. (Officially he still is the pope of the Catholic Church.)

            Probably what I would say is that we are in a time of great confusion and uncertainty in our Church. I might say that the pope has made some poor decisions and given some poor advice and said and written some things that are not correct/ accurate as compared with what we believe as Catholics. I would ask them what questions they have. If I didn’t know the answer I would work to find an answer.

            Then I would reassure them that God is in control, that these matters are not things the lay people in the church can fix and that we should pray for him. I would reassure them that you and your spouse will be there for them, that our faith and our church has weathered many storms over its 2,000 year history.

            Maybe a good conclusion is to pray for him as a family every morning or every evening.

          • It’s a good opportunity to teach them about the history of the papacy, the good popes and the bad ones. I think Keep the Faith has a series of lectures on the history of the Popes.

          • Sit tight. Be patient, keep a cool head. It is tempting to want to “do something” impulsive or imprudent. People will propose several responses; you must discern with prayer which are the prudent ones.

        • He’s not obligated to respond. A Pope can’t be condemned of heresy except by another future Pope. He may be manifestly a heretic but, there’s no legal mechanism to depose him. Also it can’t be a schism because a schism is separating oneself from submission to the Pope. An anti-pope can’t do that unless there’s a real Pope to separate from. And resistance to a valid Pope is not always a schism. He’s either an alleged heretical but still valid Pope to be resisted or we are in a state of sedevacatism, which can only be a matter or opinion until ruled on by another Pope. Pope Formosus was ruled, valid, invalid, valid and invalid and valid by subsequent Popes. The Church has survived dubious Popes, don’t worry too much about it. Just hold fast to tradition like St. Paul instructed.

          Reply
          • Yes indeed, hold fast to tradition, the very words of the bible that blow up the protestant notion of sola scriptura. There is a real pope to separate from, of that I’m convinced.

      • Yes it has, by Bergoglio and his ilk, he and his toadies at the Vatican and around the world put themselves in schism. The two biggest toadies in the US are Dolan and Cupich. Bergoglio will exit stage right one day soon and they’ll be left trying to explain what the he-double hockey sticks they were defending.

        Reply
  9. This is a most proper second step (the dubia being the first). A Formal Correction by the dubia cardinals must now be made and in concert with this filial correction. Before, however, that Formal Correction is issued, a more authoritative intervention may occur.

    Reply
  10. Game on!!! Best news ever on September 23rd, day when Apocalipse 12 took place in the sky! Good bless you and Virgin protect you!

    Reply
  11. “Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like bishops and your religious act like religious” – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “‘The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don’t be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Then she concluded: ‘nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head’.”  – Sister Lucia

    St. Athanasius who was excommunicated by Pope Liberius became the 1st Doctor of the Catholic Church and who was known as the Father of Orthodoxy stated “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops.”

    This is really just a rephrasing of the old Latin rule of law: “qui tacet consentire videtur (one who is silent is seen to have given consent).”
    To acquiesce is to accept or to comply. So, it follows that if a person chooses silence as a response, then that is interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as acceptance.

     “Whoever does not hate error, does not love the truth”.  – G.K. Chesterton

    Gal 1:8 “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

    “God does not require that we be successful only that we be faithful.” – Mother Teresa

    Reply
  12. Steve or one of the other moderators … can you set it up so that folks here can sign the statement as well. I would like to sign with my full name, parish, diocese, e-mail address, etc. I bet you would have an outpouring of response from the laity. I mean whatever is Francis going to do? Excommunicate us all?

    Reply
  13. So much has been said and is yet to be said, but for now, in utter and profound thanksgiving…
    Praise be Jesus Christ both now and forever!

    Reply
  14. What about his embrace of Islam? Is that not heresy too? With Francis, the old line finally ceases to be a joke: “Is the Pope a Catholic?”

    Reply
  15. The signature of Bishop Fellay would, for most other popes, be a very sticky wicket, seeing how Francis has evident designs on sweeping the SSPX into the Church formally. Somehow, though, this pope seems unfazed, outside the reach of any embarrassment. His suggestions concerning European acceptance of Muslim “refugees,” for example, have literally blown up in his face, but he continues issuing irrational defenses of his nonsense as if nothing untoward ever happened. There is a profound disconnect between this man and the realities that surround him, whether they be political, economic, or ecclesiastic.

    Reply
  16. This is a very happy day, and God bless the men and women who wrote and signed this. May this be the 1st step toward a canonical correction.
    So this has been sitting under his…chair…for a month now. Must have been irritating.

    Reply
  17. I just email Dr. Shaw and encouraged him to add an addendum to the letter regarding the thought of Martin Luther and Pope Francis. The letter should include where Pope Francis says this:

    “What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it’s not it … True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘This is your sin, and I will sin again’. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us.

    See this excellent article by 1P5: https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/pope-francis-christ-made-himself-the-devil/

    This is the most infernal of statements! For it rejects the direct words of our Lord: “go and sin no more.” Which were directly uttered in relation to the sin of adultery. It is the whole sale endorsement of the heretical theology of Martin Luther regarding anthropology and justification. It actually encourages one to commit the sin of presumption which is directly related to the Sin against the Holy Spirit.

    As an aside, in the comments below people have asked where they can sign this document, the best that I could come up with via the website is under the Press section which states to contact Dr. Joseph Shaw: http://www.correctiofilialis.org/press/

    May God have mercy on us and deliver us. Amen.
    Fr. RP

    Reply
    • Clearly, the quote above is a constituent element of Bergoglio’s “new Gospel” which is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the sort of novelty which Saint Paul told us to reject even if “an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you” (Galatians 1:8). May God have mercy on us indeed.

      Reply
    • Dear Father,

      You posted this a while ago but I’m reposting it for those who missed it the first time:

      Dearest Mother Mary, show forth thy blessed light upon us who suffer in this dark night. For the light of thy Beloved Son is besmirched with the filth splattered upon the garment of Holy Mother Church by the legions of wicked shepherds who have no love of the sheep or their Lord. O Holy Mother, let thy light shine forth to cast fear into their hearts and joy into ours that they may know that their time is short and that we may know that thy Blessed Son is Eternal. Let us gaze upon thee and believe all that the Lord thy God has spoken to thee until we can behold Him with unveiled faces and reflect His Light forever with thee in Paradise. Amen.

      Reply
  18. We the faithful, are to give thanks to Jesus Christ for His promise to be with His Church and not let the gates of hell prevail against His Bride under attack as we are witnessing.

    Reply
  19. I find it chilling that the only bishop signatory is in an irregular position with regard to the Church. The successors of the apostles should be vigorously contending for the truth, not behaving like company men. Otherwise, what use are they?

    Reply
    • This can be seen as the beginning of a barrage fire. The soldiers with this now has started shooting from the lower level. And (hopefully) their and our high-level comrades will also open a fire. Faster and more intense than before!

      Reply
      • Why do I feel that the attacks against the laity will get stronger?
        I do not have any sense of relief, but only to prepare for what lies ahead for the faithful.
        Let us pray for strength in the Lord.

        Reply
        • Every day the attack on the laity will be all the more ferocious, by all the deceived ones.
          They will use all the cards they have; fear, intimidation, authoritativeness,… and even excommunication.
          But, who remains faithful, he will reach the ultimate goal, the eternal life.

          Reply
          • Amen.

            Can one even imagine, for a moment, eternal life without our Lord and His Mother?
            Perhaps our little persecutions can be united with them?
            If God would accept.

            God bless you.

          • Amen to that! We should actually pray to God for His providence and mercy to be a part of His Saints, the Holy martyrs. That could be also a ‘short-cut’ to Heaven. But the most of martyrs are also the greatest ones. I am thinking here on just two of them now, my own Saints, John the Baptist and Thomas Moore. Both have died for our Lord and their martyrdom was a result of that very same evil as we now have, the AL- heresy which propagates adultery, thus the martyrs for the sake of the Holy Sacrament matrimony.
            St John the Baptist, St. Thomas Moore, pray for us!
            Our Lady, Mother of God, who will destroy all heresies, pray for us!

          • Did you know that the Church refused for political reasons to introduce the causes (for canonisation) for Queen Catherine of Aragon? She was a martyr for the sacrament of marriage. And so was Bishop St John Fisher, who was her spiritual director; but he was canonised because he shed his blood. Poor Queen Catherine just died of years of humiliation & neglect; and a broken heart, which in a way is more painful than the axe.

        • Historically, during the Arian heresy, it was sensus fidei of the laity who preserved the Faith when there was only one non-heretic bishop in the whole Church. (Athanasius, whom the heretics tried to kill).

          Reply
  20. I doubt Pope Francis will be swayed at all at his age. He might bob and weave around it, or pretend to think the correction is lovely and part of an open dialogue. He might use it to bring the papacy down a notch or two, “See how the Popes need to be corrected, now and again. Now watch this Pope correct all of those previous Popes.” Francis has one boss, I think a Rosary Crusade asking for God to make some definitive “adjustments” in His earthly staffing would be the next step.

    Reply
  21. I’m delighted to note the name of Fr Glen Tattersall of Melbourne, Australia, whom I’ve met. Anyone else met any of the signatories? I bet we’ve all met one, which would be pretty cool.

    Reply
  22. This reminds me of Saint Joan of Arc, letter to the Duke of Burgundy and other letters she wrote. She was always so gracious and Catholic in spirit even to enemies of France and of the faith. She simply provided a warning, stop now, take no further action or you will be stopped. And, she of course backed it up.

    Reply
  23. We, faithful catholics are to give thanks to Jesus Christ,for His brave and outspoken shepherds and defenders of His teachings.

    Reply
  24. This is very encouraging, but the Destroyer currently occupying the Chair of Peter will continue in his tactic of ignoring such protests. The protest needs to accelerate; more need to join the revolt against heresy. The Destroyer needs to be made to feel that he is losing control. The way to do this is for more laity, scholars, priests and Bishops, etc., to openly proclaim authentic moral teaching in conscious opposition to the ascendant heresy. Then keep praying. God will solve this crisis. The Destroyer cannot and will not reign forever.

    Reply
    • I wonder what would happen if rach of us writes our local bishop, sending him a copy of the 25 pahe document and ask for a response.

      I think I will do this to the archbishop and auxillary bishop.

      Reply
      • I like your idea very much and will do as you suggested. We will make it public who responded, rebuked or refused to reply. This has the potential for a public campaign to put pressure on Vatican for an official response to the “correction” or even the original dubia.

        Reply
      • In my diocese, most things get forwarded to different agencies.
        I usually get a notification saying my comment/suggestion has been
        forwarded on to the Worship Commission. (Shake my head with
        large eye roll) That must be in the Protestant building down
        the street. 🙁

        Reply
        • Even so. We really should do what must be done. By each of us.
          It is like giving the alms to the poor. It is our obligation to give him some money, with which we deserved a part of our reward. It’s up to him, (the poor) if he use those alms to buy some alcohol.

          Reply
          • Oh, I agree with you 100%. Just a comment
            about what happens HERE. God’s still in charge.
            Picturing in my mind that scene from a movie
            where the person gets buried in mail as the
            mailman or secretary dumps the huge bag of
            letters on him. 🙂

  25. As someone who is not a member of the Catholic Church, we on the outside see the absurdity of having priests who molested children for the last 60 years giving out communion and absolution, while hapless divorced (with civil remarriage) are treated as outcastes. It is a matter of felons sending those who commit misdemeanors to the gallows. Now the new Pope is being martyred on this site for seeing this.

    Reply
    • That’s what the devil is hoping you’ll see. Not able to destroy from without, he attempts to destroy from within. The ‘scandals’ were not perpetrated by ‘pedophiles,’ rather you’re looking at loads of revolting pederasty going on. Homosexuality is not just a ‘big deal’ to Catholics and Holy Mother Church because of tbe loss of souls. It has been one huge tool in Satan’s desperate, well-orchestrated attack the physical institution of Christ’s holy bride.
      He hates everyone, remember?

      No one is ‘casting out’ ‘hapless’ divorced people. Catholics believe in Christ’s physical presence in the Holy Eucharist. No-one in a state of un-repentant mortal sin can eat the panis angelicus.

      Any other probs?

      Reply
        • But Judas was not the first pope but Peter. In this case Peter as consecrated a pope by the same Jesus was always guided and taught by the Holy Spirit. Can you see the difference?

          Reply
          • Even after he was Pope, Peter was apt to make mistakes– St Paul, the first “professional theologian” said he “opposed Peter to his face” and Peter, seeing the light, backed down. There was from the beginning no “golden age of the Church” –theres’s been trials from day one, even in the Papacy.

    • There are bad apples in every basket especially a large basket such as the church. You don’t go out and chop the entire apple orchard down and replace them with lemon trees just because of those few bad apples.

      Reply
    • “Now the new Pope is being martyred on this site for seeing this.”
      Martyred, you say? How about this: “Irish survivor Marie Collins’s resignation from a papal commission on child protection exposes the Vatican”
      http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4506195/child-sexual-abuse-will-be-blot-on-pope-francis/

      Or this: “Pope Reportedly Knew Priest Accused of Raping Children Two Years Before Arrest” (he actually reinstalled that priest to active duties after that priest was silenced during the Pontificate of Benedict XVI
      https://sputniknews.com/latam/201612291049088407-pope-reportedly-knew-priest-rapist/

      Or this:
      https://www.google.ca/search?q=Rev.+Nicola+Corradi&oq=Rev.+Nicola+Corradi&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      Reply
    • Well, part of that has to do with willful infiltration of the priesthood.
      You might want to read about the trial of Bella Dodd. This was going on
      from the 1930’s onward. So if they placed 1100 Communists in the
      in the priesthood in the 1930’s, how many more in the 1940’s and 1950’s
      as the initial placements moved up and were able to let more in? (See below)

      “Speaking as a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs. Dodd said: “In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. A dozen years before Vatican II she stated that: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church” — where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism. She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognise the Catholic Church.””

      Here’s the link: (article by Chris Ferrara)
      http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/cs/perspective235.asp

      The second part of the problem is that the Pope is not allowed to
      CHANGE doctrine. It doesn’t matter what he SEES. The Pope is
      supposed to receive the doctrine that came down through the ages,
      and pass that EXACT SAME doctrine on, protected by him and unchanged.
      Receiving Holy Communion in the state most of these “hapless”
      people are in, is a serious sin. (you can trust me on this – been there,
      done that). Confirming them in this sin and leaving them in it, instead of explaining why they should not be receiving Communion and helping them
      out of the sin, is the wrong way. You don’t confirm/affirm people in their
      sin. Many just did not totally understand the depth of the teaching.
      So you teach them and get them out of their sin. The fact of the
      matter is, they CAN stay together and receive Holy Communion,
      SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING THE MARITAL ACT.
      Yes, it can be done. It’s a choice. (Again, you can trust me on this.)

      Reply
      • Reading your informed comment here, the thought crossed my mind that the Bergoglian approach is similar to a drug abuse counselor who decides to give his charges just small amounts of heroin “to accompany them” without being “judgmental” while he attempts to help them “discern” that being a junkie isn’t a proper way to live.

        Reply
        • That’s exactly right. It seems to me, just as Jesus
          has been moved to the side of the altar in the Tabernacle, the same in many people’s hearts, at least mine. But some people without total understanding of what happened. We have to be taught, and they’ve stopped teaching us. The first thought should be to God’s law instead. Not, well, God just wants me to be happy. My thoughts NOW make me nearly faint. How many more thorns did I put in Jesus’ Sacred Heart? How many more swords are in the heart of the Sorrowful Mother because of me. But worse, how many more would there have been going onward if uncorrected by good priests. And what about this other person? Am I sentencing this person, whom I love or think that I love, to an eternity of hellfire? Most likely, yes. Do I care more about their soul or their ***** (Ahem)? It’s really a mindset change from the
          physical to the spiritual, and at the very least, fearing
          retribution from God. But hopefully, moving to trying to
          not offend Him anymore because as the Virgin said,
          “He is already too much offended.” Thanks for
          commenting here. I didn’t want to offend anyone,
          but we are out here. There are lots of mistakes and tons of ignorance about why you can’t receive Holy Communion. There needs to be a lot explanations put out here by priests starting with what Jesus teaches about sacramental marriage and why, and literally some fire and brimstone preaching,
          because most of it is lost in generations past.
          You can’t just hand me a paper and assume I understand what these things mean or that I’m going to look it up. They have to go all the way back.
          Many people will continue on, but some will get it and stop
          offending. There isn’t anything to lose. I just heard a
          sermon by the “anonymous priest” about what you
          can and cannot do on Sunday as far as restaurants,
          buying gas, shopping or working and of course Mass,
          and what is encompassed in the words “working on Sunday.”
          Just throwing the commandment at me didn’t really help
          much until I actually started reading. He STILL told me
          things that I didn’t know in practice.
          AND, God helps you when you try to stop offending.
          if you pray, information starts flowing in from everywhere.
          Like this total gem: St. Mectilde says that Jesus told her
          that Magdalen has been given the intercessory
          power, to obtain for those she intercedes for, the
          exact graces which she, herself, was given. This is
          a spiritual goldmine for people in my situation. If any of you are reading this, ask Magdalen to obtain these graces
          for you!!! With the grace of God, you can straighten this out!
          Thanks again for commenting!!!

          Reply
          • And thank you for sharing your insight with us. I am adding St. MM to my prayers for intercession as of this moment. Why it never occurred to me before, I have no idea. But I can guess. Thanks again!

    • The moral and spiritual constitution of the priest who administers the sacraments has no effect on the efficaciousness of the sacraments. Jesus Christ administers all the sacraments, the priest acts “in persona Christ.” The priesthood, indeed any office in the Church does not provide prestige to the individual. The office is one of service. To the degree any cleric or religious thinks or conducts themselves otherwise they are betraying their call to self-less service.
      All of us are called to obedience to Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium of the Church – from Pope to “groundling” laity. Thus you see the call to accountability referenced in this article.
      You appear to be one obsessed with the sexual habits of Catholic priests. While you estimate their collective moral fiber you will want to keep in mind that those involved in the scandal (which manifestly gratifies your bold anti-Catholicism) numbered four percent of priests – considerably less than the number of non-Catholic pastoral practitioners involved in the abuse of minors – and their number considerably less than the number of heterosexual married men abusing minors.
      The notion that sexual abuse is the monopoly of Roman Catholicism is erroneous and dangerous. You might well begin you investigative efforts with the insurance companies
      that cover religious denominations. I’m afraid the picture would not suit anti-Catholic and non-Catholic expectations. For example, within the few months it was announced the Anglican Church in Australia is under investigation for over 1200 cases of sexual abuse — and this number discovered with far less scrutiny being brought to bear than the unrelenting attack the Roman Catholic Church persistently endures. Other protestant sects are bearing the same fruit down under. Would that the raking light be brought to bear on the front pages of the US and the EU.
      The scandal within Roman Catholicism, which is real, might also be looked at from another perspective to give it a three dimensional reality. The vast majority of those
      abused were teenaged boys and young men. If I’m not mistaken they account for
      just less than 90% of the victims. That is called ephebophilia. That term is also used in reference to the abuse of teenaged girls. Pedophilia – the abuse of prepubescent children accounts for less than five percent of the victims of Roman Catholic priests.
      Less than four percent of priests took part in this hideous tragedy – but more than
      eighty-five percent of those four percent were contact between priests and teenaged males. So, more accurately, one might look at “the scandal” as a homosexual scandal – I don’t see anyone laying this at the door of our gay brothers and the community of sexual license that is to be found everywhere in the media, the entertainment industry and the academy.
      By far most pedophiles and ephebophiles are married men. Of course, there are the
      mainstreamed romanticized Lolita fantasies of the popular culture. I once saw cited a statistic that physicians and farmers were the most likely perpetrators of abuse against children and teenagers. Then of course there is the problem of the local public school… Of all professions clergy are the least likely to perpetrate, and of all clergy, Roman Catholic priests are the least likely of all. Eighty-six percent of priests are making a virtuous life their habitation under difficult cultural circumstances.
      So there remains one big filthy secret to be uncovered when lawyers, journalists and other hacks need a few more bucks. Including those who have a penchant for false
      accusation. Over one-third of the accusations made against Roman Catholic priests have been proved manifestly false. How many more are?
      While the Roman Catholic hierarchy is culpable for remaining silent in the face of this
      abhorrent scandal, there is the need to contextualize this. It is only in recent decades that cultural norms allow for any frank public discussion of human sexuality, let alone the current of homosexuality and anyone’s abuse of the vulnerable.
      Protestant communities remain without self-acknowledgement of the scandal within their own ranks. I am not edified. Are you? What are you doing to bring your denomination to shoulder responsibility?
      The Roman Catholic hierarchy is also culpable for not raising its voice in self-defense,
      allowing the general public to perceive this as solely a Catholic problem. This is a society wide problem. And that includes the protestant communities who have looked on with a veiled smirk, concealing their hatred for Roman Catholicism. It is also a problem of self-contempt and self-loathing endemic in Roman Catholic clerical culture hungry for relevancy that can only be found in secular materialism — another underpinning of the malady the “filial correction” seeks to address.
      Is your concern for the moral welfare of minors, or a contempt for Roman Catholicism and the value of chaste living according to one’s state of life?
      Those called to the vocation of marriage assume a lifelong vowed commitment. Marriage is a sacrament which confers the grace to persevere – in virtue. Should that grace be rejected by entering into another partnership the party is no more or less able to participate in the sacramental life of the Church than a priest in the state of mortal sin.
      The confession of sin and the absolution which accompanies a good confession requires repentance and a sincere and firm resolve to sin no more. That a sincere and firm resolve might not be immediately sufficient to withstand future temptation is understandable given our nature flawed by Original Sin. The asceticism which constitutes effort will bear fruit Christ assures us. Faith and works is at the core of Roman Catholic spiritual life.

      Reply
    • As you say you are not a member of the Catholic Church. You do not understand the full doctrine of the faith. Sinful men do not define the faith.

      Reply
    • Unfortunately for your case, Doug, we who are in the Church have 500 years of history that tell us where your kind of thinking ends up. Our complaint is that Francis seems to want to imitate the disastrous course of Lutherans (et aliarum Protestantium). Just as the Muslim invasion of Europe and its consequences (Nice, Paris, Munich, London, Madrid, etc.) seem to have taught him nothing, so the heretical follies of the “reformers” fail to enlighten him.

      Reply
    • I would be grateful if someone at 1P5 could inform me why this comment, posted yesterday, was first labled as spam, then labeled as requiring moderation, and then
      delelted from this postion without even the “Comment Deleted” notation being provided.
      Something is amuck.

      Here is a second attempt to respond to Douglas.

      The moral and spiritual constitution of the priest who administers the sacraments has no effect on the efficaciousness of the sacraments. Jesus Christ administers all the sacraments, the priest acts “in persona Christ.” The priesthood, indeed any office in the
      Church does not provide prestige to the individual. The office is one of service. To the degree any cleric or religious thinks or conducts themselves otherwise they are betraying their call to self-less service.
      All of us are called to obedience to Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium of the Church – from Pope to “groundling” laity. Thus you see the call to accountability referenced in this article.
      You appear to be one obsessed with the sexual habits of Catholic priests. While you estimate their collective moral fiber you will want to keep in mind that those involved in the scandal (which manifestly gratifies your bold anti-Catholicism) numbered four percent of priests – considerably less than the number of non-Catholic pastoral practitioners involved in the abuse of minors – and their number considerably less than the number of heterosexual married men abusing minors.
      The notion that sexual abuse is the monopoly of Roman Catholicism is erroneous and dangerous. You might well begin you investigative efforts with the insurance companies that cover religious denominations. I’m afraid the picture would not suit anti-Catholic and non-Catholic expectations. For example, within the few months it was announced the Anglican Church in Australia is under investigation for over 1200 cases of sexual abuse — and this number discovered with far less scrutiny being brought to bear than the unrelenting attack the Roman Catholic Church persistently endures. Other protestant sects are bearing the same fruit down under. Would that the raking light be brought to bear on the front pages of the US and the EU.
      The scandal within Roman Catholicism, which is real, might also be looked at from another perspective to give it a three dimensional reality. The vast majority of those abused were teenaged boys and young men. If I’m not mistaken they account for just less than 90% of the victims. That is called ephebophilia. That term is also used in reference to the abuse of teenaged girls. Pedophilia – the abuse of prepubescent children accounts for less than five percent of the victims of Roman Catholic priests.
      Less than four percent of priests took part in this hideous tragedy – but more than eighty-five percent of those four percent were contact between priests and teenaged males. So, more accurately, one might look at “the scandal” as a homosexual scandal – I don’t see anyone laying this at the door of our gay brothers and the community of sexual license that is to be found everywhere in the media, the entertainment industry and the academy.
      By far most pedophiles and ephebophiles are married men. Of course, there are the
      mainstreamed romanticized Lolita fantasies of the popular culture. I once saw cited a statistic that physicians and farmers were the most likely perpetrators of abuse against children and teenagers. Then of course there is the problem of the local public school… Of all professions clergy are the least likely to perpetrate, and of all clergy, Roman Catholic priests are the least likely of all. Eighty-six percent of priests are making a virtuous life their habitation under difficult cultural circumstances.
      So there remains one big filthy secret to be uncovered when lawyers, journalists and other hacks need a few more bucks. Including those who have a penchant for false accusation. Over one-third of the accusations made against Roman Catholic priests have been proved manifestly false. How many more are?
      While the Roman Catholic hierarchy is culpable for remaining silent in the face of this
      abhorrent scandal, there is the need to contextualize this. It is only in recent decades that cultural norms allow for any frank public discussion of human sexuality, let alone the current of homosexuality and anyone’s abuse of the vulnerable.
      Protestant communities remain without self-acknowledgement of the scandal within their own ranks. I am not edified. Are you? What are you doing to bring your denomination to shoulder responsibility?

      Reply
  26. Matthew 18:17
    And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

    Formal correction is next. Above Scripture is going to be the result barring divine intervention.

    Reply
    • The Gospel was Luke 1: 5-25 on the Byzantine/Ukrainian Greek Catholic calendar for the Feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist.

      Reply
  27. I have been waiting for this but I thought it would come from the dubia cardinals. Since this “Filial Correction” was given to Pope Francis on August 11, he has had time to think about it and presumably has not responded. I would hope that the two remaining dubia cardinals would follow up soon with their formal Filial Correction to the Pope. If he insists on not responding I would hope that the dubia cardinals would take it a step further. Pope Francis has caused an informal schism in the Church amongst the hierarchy whom we lay people look to for guidance.

    Reply
  28. Is it enough at this point to accuse Pope Francis of *only* material heresy? In his response to the guidelines of the Argentine bishops, wherein communion for those in a state of objective sin is given at least limited permission, Francis states that it is the “only acceptable interpretation” of AL.

    So the only acceptable interpretation of AL is communion for adulterers? What further need have we of proof? Is this open endorsement of sacrilige not sufficient to achieve formal heresy? If not, what is left?

    Reply
    • One needs to be confronted by an able authority, to be called a formal heretic.

      In the case of a pope, such authority would be either God himself or a future pope.

      Reply
  29. I emailed the professor listed in the press release. This is what I wrote:

    Dr. Shaw, I am an American and I am a Catholic. I am a lay person – no one of importance and no one special. I am not a scholar. I am not a professor. I do not have a theology degree. All of that being said, I wholeheartedly agree with what you and your colleagues are doing. I would like to add my name to the correction. Is there a way I could do that? What information would you need? Thank you for having the courage to speak up and to speak out against what is happening in the Catholic Church with respect to Amoris Laetitia and Pope Francis. May God Richly Bless You.

    This is what he responded:

    If you’d like to support it publicly:
    https://www.change.org/p/pope-francis-support-by-the-catholic-laity-for-the-filial-correction-of-pope-francis

    Hopefully by posting this information here, I will save him the need to respond to a few hundred (or thousand) emails.

    Reply
  30. Fear, little will come of the effort.

    Francis & his proxies will “Alt-Right” the document (it included hook words ideal for a hanging) and its signatories. Name them, isolate them, expelled them. The world has taken note and will award their campaign

    One does not call this pope a heretic without calling the world the same. Heresy, to these fellows, is what the world is not. The world, progressing forward, is always its self; it is incapable of being in a heretical state – likewise this pope, since he is of the world.

    The signatories of this document will see (and feel) the point – soon. Signs and signals aplenty. Fr James Martin’s list of proxy bishops is (alarmingly) growing – with no opposing bishops list to counter. The Synod on the Youth and WYD are fast approaching, and each event (even if unwittingly) will be revolutionary. The recent duststorm stirred by F. Martin will settle and cake on all the ecclastical furniture. Doctrinal Development shackled, squeezed, whip-lashed to “develop” all manner of doctrines. Judith Butler consulted.

    Besides, the faithful are had, trumped by the authority put into Francis’ hand. The man holds the Conclave Cardinals List – checking it twice. On that list, somewhere, is a demarcation line marking off critical mass. Deaths, additions, a tweaking of rules and that mass is solidify.

    Francis listens to nothing but the forward laboring of the revolution. All will be made clear during the Synod on the Youth. It will brook no pesky, retrograde, counter-revolutionary dubia. Fr James Martin understands.

    I know the proper response is one of civility and awaiting upon proper authority to do the proper thing. Really? Are pitchforks to be always stored in sheds? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the Catholic Church can bear, once more, to be willowed down to one priest in Alexandria!

    Reply
    • No doubt you are correct in the short term. The steel of clerical deafness and the bracing provided by their vacuous moral superiority complex appears almost impenetrable. But the vulnerability we shoulder in raising our voice contributes a sacrifice to our prayer for the Church making it evermore so efficacious. What men contrive and Providence allows will be — but Providence allows evil only to draw out a greater good.
      As responsible men and women we must raise our concern and explain their rationale no matter the consequence.
      Mendacity can roar, but it cannot slay the soul of the disciple.

      Reply
        • Still, watch out for the severed head, which is still dangerous– many have been bitten by the reflex nerve action, by poking at it in curiosity.

          Reply
  31. Can someone counsel me.. I have no desire to hear Francis’ name being prayed about during the prayers of the faithful or during the Canon, actually I feel like not going to mass today Sunday or if I go of walking before his name mentioned.., this is caused by knowing that he has had this since August 11th and has ignored it..the callousness of this man knows no limits

    Reply
    • The consequences of a hard heart will be his to bear unless he undergoes conversion. We are required by Christ’s admonition to pray for him, as well as by ecclesial deference.
      Petition and thanksgiving before Almighty God was always boldly accompanied in ancient times by sacrifice. When we don’t want to pray — for any reason at all (including fatigue as well as real aversion) doing so in spite of our lack of desire is the sacrifice that accompanies our petition. In doing this we participate in Christ’s constant intersession for us before the Father. Simply remember when you join your voice to His, He is right there beside you most intimately.
      God reward you.

      Reply
    • Get up and go to the bathroom during that part of the mass. OR
      Find a mass that is said in Spanish (or another language that you do not understand). OR
      Find a mass where Francis’ name is not mentioned.

      In a very recent post, Ann Barnhardt prints an email from a priest who tells her that he is no longer going to use Francis’ name. I attend a mass where Francis’ name is not used. And I feel blessed because I go to mass in peace.

      Reply
    • Offer up your pain for Pope Francis and DON’T leave during the Canon. If you miss a significant portion of the Mass (I.e. the Canon), you risk not fulfilling your Sunday obligation and must hear another full Mass on Sunday to fulfill your Sunday obligation.

      Reply
      • I do not have a problem praying for someone — anyone — even Francis. I will pray for Francis and for his soul — for his repentance and conversion. What I have a problem with is declaring my union with, unity with, fellowship with and communion with. In that part of the mass, I am declaring my unity and communion with a man who speaks heresy, blasphemy and sacrilege. Would you like my list:

        I am not in communion and/or unity with “lies I was deceived.”
        I am not in communion and/or unity with “proselytism is a grave sin and solemn nonsense.”
        I am not in communion and/or unity with “Jesus likes it when we sin.”
        I am not in communion and/or unity with …… fill in the blank with a hundred other statements.

        For me to say that I am in union, unity, fellowship and/or communion with any of these evils is a knowing, deliberate, and continuing LIE on my part. I tried to assuage my conscience with “offer it up,” “sacrifice for Francis’ salvation,” “suffering is a part of the Christian walk” and a host of other statements to resolve my cognitive dissonance. But truth be told, I am lying (being fundamentally dishonest) in the worst of ways.

        If the priest did not omit Francis’ name at the mass I attend, I would not go to mass. I would stay home and read scripture, pray the rosary and do whatever other devotions are appropriate.

        Reply
    • At this time I consider the pope an enemy of what I hold very dear…which is the Catholic faith. Our Lord also asked us to pray for our enemies. As such I pray for Pope Francis daily regardless of my feelings toward him.

      I think the Pope is in great need of prayer.

      Reply
    • being led by your feelings is exactly one of the root problem of “Amoris Laeticia”

      “pray for your ennemies. Love them” Jesus told us.

      Reply
  32. This email address is at the bottom of the website, and it is probably the one to send a request to add a signature: [email protected]

    I hope I didn’t get Dr. Shaw bombarded with emails…though I’m sure he was expecting that to happen.

    Reply
  33. Dear Readers, do not hold your breath.
    Holy Mary relates to us at Akita: “In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent.”

    Therefore, Dear Readers, it is very critical that we continue to make reparations to the Immaculate Heart of Mary & to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, as best we can within our daily life.

    O Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I offer you my prayers, works, joys, sufferings of this day, for the Intentions of your Most Sacred Heart.

    JAMLY,
    hobo

    Reply
  34. Really bad situation which only promises to get worse. It would appear that the worries of Malachi Martin are fulfilled. The devil has taken hold in the Vatican.

    Reply
    • The de facto schism is now beginning. The real church, the remnant, will lose their buildings and their priests will be excommunicated. We will be back to house churches as in apostolic times until the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

      Reply
  35. I was astonished to hear this morning at the end of Mass my pastor warn parishioners that they were going to read about the Correction in the press, and that it’s signatories accused the pope of being a heretic (wrong), but that in fact THEY were the true heretics one and all! Unfortunately, I suspect this is the tone of the counterattack that we can expect from the Bergoglians.

    Reply
    • The unacknowledged and growing schism is going to become open and known for all to see. We will all be forced to choose a side — with Christ or with Satan. What are you going to do about your pastor’s statements, if anything?

      Reply
      • I haven’t decided yet but I know I’ll be doing something. I may politely confront him concerning both the lack of veracity and the ad hominem nature of his brief remarks this morning. I want to consider carefully how to approach the matter before acting.

        Reply
        • Good for you, Johnny. Yes, it sounds like both a lack of veracity and a lack of civility (ad hominem nature). I fear that many pastors are going to take the exact same approach as your pastor did, and the laity (for the most part) will be too asleep and deceived to know any different. Lord have mercy.

          Reply
          • The hard part, Susan, is that I genuinely like this pastor (he’s relatively new and a lot younger than I). He works hard and, till today, has given no signs of being anything but strictly orthodox. We can’t let things like that stand in the way of the truth, though, can we? That said, I’m nauseated by the thought of what is probably coming. Life’s never easy.

          • You may see it other way, that fact that you like him. It is actually a huge benefit.
            Ask him, if nothing else, to come here and meet some good Catholic comrades.
            He may first read a few (hundreds) of comments, so he’ll get a better picture of the person who they really are.

          • No offense taken at all, CS. These are difficult times and “solutions” have to be different for every case. This pastor has intervened in the past to straighten out the thinking of some parishioners about Islam (they had bought into the “it’s like other religions” nonsense, and had even intimated it was tantamount to “racism” to criticize Mohammedans!), and he has worked very hard to get more parishioners to go to Confession more often. I have no plans to be offensive with him, only informative.

          • Johnny, I am willing to bet that your pastor was “encouraged” to make this announcement by his bishop! Do you think his remarks were “off the cuff” and “oh, by the way”? If you can educate and support and help him see the truth, that would be an awesome gift that you would give him. If sides are going to be chosen (and they will be), he needs every bit of help you can give. Maybe referring him to 1 Peter 5 would help. Maybe printing off the entire 25 pages of the document and sitting down with him — asking where is this wrong? — would help.

          • It’s always a possibility, but I got the clear impression that his remarks came after he saw the headline on Drudge this morning. The Mass I refer to is at 7am, so if the bishop intervened, it would have to be around midnight! I sincerely doubt it.

    • Do you think you can gather courage and tell to him about that very very important matter (wrong), that you already saw and have clearly recognized, which is a very very very WRONG interpretation, thus misinterpretation of such important matter? For the sake of his own soul, and also many other souls.

      Reply
    • I would ask him for a refutation. The pope has been accused, let us hear a rebuttal based on scripture and dogma instead of just saying “no, you’re a heretic”. These men have a laid out a detailed case with abundant citations. You want dialogue, here’s the chance: let us hear or read the devastating counter case that silences the pope’s critics.

      Reply
      • Thanks for the suggestion. It could be put something like, “Just what did they say that is in any way heretical? Can the pope even insinuate that God can command a human being to sin? Isn’t THAT heresy?”

        Reply
        • Exactly. I read your comments and know you don’t need advice for me but I always find that most effective way to prove somebody wrong is by asking them questions. In this way they either realize their error or are forced to say “I don’t care about facts or whatever. It’s because I said so.”.

          That is when you can then tell the person that he or she is arguing from emotion which is unreasonable and unChristian. We are not a sentimental people. Prudential judgment and a demand for justice does not entail, as the Pope says, “watching television and crying”. It calls for a reasonable consideration of circumstances, prayer and then us taking manly action when gross injustice occurs.

          Reply
    • The attack will get stronger now………it will be met with many examples such as this.

      I am sorry you had to hear this after Mass. Perhaps it is time to find another parish, with a priest who is holy.

      Reply
  36. To say the pope is teaching heresy is a very serious charge. The fact this charge is not being made, at least publically, by any cardinals or diocesan bishops is significant. The head of the bishops in my state is Archbishop Chaput. I trust him and I believe him to be a solid, believing Catholic. So “pray, hope, and don’t worry.”

    Reply
    • Unfortunately, Dr. Snow, several of these men are more concerned with keeping their positions than with the truth of Christ. As Our Lady of Good Success when prophesying this very moment over 400 years ago said “those who should speak will remain silent”.

      Reply
    • Not to put too fine a point on the matter, Russell, but I’m not sure that IS what the signatories are saying. As I read it – available in its entirety here: http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English_1.pdf — they are saying simply that he has permitted to arise a climate in the Church where heresy can thrive. They are asking that he forthrightly condemn certain propositions underpinning this lamentable state of affairs. Just as my permitting a lot of Communist talk around my family table would not necessarily make me a Communist, so his indulging heretical propositions doesn’t necessarily make Francis a heretic. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that is how I interpret what they wrote.

      Reply
      • Technically the Pope’s silence in not clarifying his ambiguities is not holding or teaching heresy; but is allowing the propogation of heresy. Since he is now refusing to clarify after a formal request of Cardinals via the dubita, we know that his refusal to give unequivocal teaching is deliberate.

        Reply
    • Surely, there are at least a few faithful Bishops and Cardinals who are remaining circumspect in their public comments as a strategic choice. There will be future conclaves, and with Francis having appointed a large portion of the voting block, there will be advantages to not appearing too “rigid” — whether one is a potential candidate or just participating in the discussion at the conclave. Though I long for more brave Bishops to speak out, I have hope that not everyone remaining silent intends consent.

      Reply
    • Technically the Pope is not holding or teaching heresy; but is allowing the propogation of heresy, which is an important difference: a sin of omission rather than commission.
      His silence is failing /neglecting his duty of defending the faith.

      Reply
  37. Silly clerics! This pope doesn’t read correctiones. Not when his mailbox overflows with Time, People, and Self.

    There are only so many hours in the day.

    Reply
  38. The pope owes a debt of gratitude to the signatories for restricting themselves to charging him with propagating only 7 “false and heretical propositions”. When I last checked the Denzinger-Bergoglio website, there was a list of no less than 160 crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated against the Faith and the Faithful by the current Bishop of Rome. In reality, the Bill of Accusation could stretch to literally hundreds of pages.

    Reply
  39. Benard Fellay ,Superior of St Pius X Fathers and Brothers signed this. WHat about CDL Burke?
    BIshop Paprocki?

    Where is CDL DOLAN?

    Are there any church leaders willing to defend the faith?

    Reply
      • When asked for comment, Cardinal Dolan started out by telling a story about how much his mother in St. Louis loves barbecue food and finished 25 minutes later with “and so I saw Matt Lauer–he is a good friend of mine–feeding pigeons out his mouth in Central Park. But I digress.”.

        Reply
    • Believe me, Convert, Cardinal Burke has done the heavy lifting and he has more ahead of him. And he will do it.
      The ecclesiastical battle field is rife with mines and the grossest subterfuge. There are good bishops, clergy, religious and laity who are in the canopy ready for the right moment.
      Then there are Dolan, Tobin, Cupich, and the legion of sycophants who the very thought of acting on Roman Catholic Gospel principles — jeopardizing their place of prestige in the eyes of the boss — is stomach turning.
      Tactics. Winning this battle requires stealth, and most of all Divine Providence.

      Reply
  40. So the pope has had this Filial Correction since August 11th. Now why would he still not have responded six weeks later?

    Is it:

    a) He’s waiting for “Tucho” Fernandez to provide a devastating, unanswerable and definitive rebuttal.

    Or b) He’s had it up to here with trying to dialogue with those who consistently say ‘No! No! No!’ (That’s No to heresy, No to false doctrine and No to sin).

    Or c) He’s spent so long and is so far out on the periphery that he is incapable of recognising, still less understanding and responding to a clear exposition of Church Teaching set against concepts and propositions contrary to the same – concepts and propositions that he himself has relentlessly and enthusiastically espoused.

    Reply
  41. Thank you faithful servants for laying this out so well.

    You have laid the framework, the foundation for our faithful prelates to fulfill ‘their’ obligation as given to them by Christ – To sign the Dubia and speak with full righteous in defense of the Church.

    Time seems short now. A chance, perhaps to make thing right again.

    Reply
    • There will be no answer that truly engages the multitude of issues that have been respectfully and cogently presented. His element is disrespectful of anyone who crosses them. They will feel retribution in roundabout ways, and all in good time.
      Revenge is a dish best served cold.

      Reply
    • I don’t expect he will. But his stuff will, rather begin to attack everyone who signed it.
      As usual. And similar to the 4 cardinal of the 5 dubia’s.
      That’s why we even more must be loud and standing firm in defending of the TRUTH.
      We must, all faithful ones, do anything, everywhere and every time all what we can do to denounce every lie. Immediately. And without fear.

      Reply
    • If we’re lucky, he will excommunicate or even informally condemn everyone who signed it, which will show everyone what he is, and nail everyone’s colours to the mast.

      Reply
  42. I think it’s awesome this correction was signed on Sept. 23rd! What a major statement with heavenly signs. Then we, being little sheeple, ask what’s next? For my guess, I think Pope Francis will bring the dark dominions, powers, thrones, and principalities, against the Catholic Church. His public positioning will get louder and louder in its false bleating. Lots of secular people adore him and will take his false voice as truth as they know it. We are not out of the “suffering” zone by any means. Glad the priests at my parish preach the only Gospel of Jesus Christ. All daily living goes a little more gently in these tidal waves of satan’s spew…..

    Reply
  43. Just as the sign in Apocalypse….the serpent was waiting to eat the child. With the letter of correction, the child was taken into heaven, the real Catholic Church goes into the desert with the Mama and satan spews his vomit. Jesus wins….again.

    Reply
  44. Thank God that there are still courageous clergy and laity who organized, produced, and sent this Filial Correction to Francis. What’s next? I expect that Francis, being a creature of habit, will do what he always does when he is criticized. Ignore it, double down on it, send his mercenaries out to malign, persecute, and purge, so that he keeps his hands clean. The Franciscan bulldozer will roll on, unabated, his massive ego and mission intact, until his demise. That being said, it is still important and necessary for the faithful clergy and laity to raise their voices in the form of these corrections, emails and letters to church hierarchy, even by just voicing their opinion in their own sphere of influence or commenting on blogs. Whether this dissension results in an earthly change or not, what matters is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit see it and know you have done what you could to defend Holy Mother Church.

    Reply
  45. I wonder if these seven corrections are “The seven thunders appear in Revelation 10:1–7. In his apocalyptic vision, the apostle John saw a mighty angel striding the sea and the land with a scroll in his hand. The angel gave a shout like the roar of a lion, and then the voices of the seven thunders spoke. Just as John was about to write down what they said, a voice from heaven told him to “seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down” (Revelation 10:4)”. Because they would only make sense in our times . . . .

    Reply
      • If they were “THE” 7 thunders, you would have thought that they would have left enough of a permanent mark on the global church so that they would immediately jump to everyone’s mind when you hear that phrase, the way “Eagle of the Apocalypse” is definitively St Vincent Ferrer.
        No disrespect to St Anthony Marie Claret.

        Reply
        • Exactly my perplexity. I am rethinking it. …… I think it still will come. St. Anthony Marie was thunderous. Make no mistake. He saved Vatican I council in two ways. He is actually (and rightly) known as the St. Vincent Ferrer of our times. Still, he didn’t say it was himself, but his descendents. ……. that I now feel is soon to come.

          Reply
          • Well, since the Jesuits abdicated as the defenders of the Papacy (and therefore orthodoxy)
            Some honest Claretians would be most welcome to fill the vacancy. All they have to do is SPEAK UP.

          • It may be his descendants and not Claretians per se. Prophecy is known only after the fact. The fact that they are “trumpets” and that what they say is “sealed” in a mysterious way indicates they will say something NO ONE ever expected. I have a deep devotion to St. Anthony Marie Claret. He was a very great saint and his life, deeds, and works and writings indicate what is most needed in our day and also the greatest obstacles. I need to reread his prophecy. His whole life is amazingly opposite of Modernity and a remedy for most our ills.

          • Here are some of St Anthony Mary Claret’s words about earthquakes:

            “The earthquake will return soon. God wishes it. They are the great missionaries that God sends so that obstinate hearts, who do not wish to listen to words of love, may be converted.’

            “God does with many of us as a mother does to a lazy sleeping child, she shakes the cot or bed so as to awaken him and cause him to arise. If that does not suffice, she whips him.

            “God does the same with many of his children, lethargic sinners. He shakes their beds, that is, their houses, by means of earthquakes, saving their bodies and their lives. If that does not awaken them and they do not arise, He will give them blows, sending them the cholera and the pest. God has made that known to me.”

          • Yes. The point of earthquakes is also thus described in the Roman catechism. Just wanted to share that I think I know what the Seven Thunders are. They are about to speak, and will blow everyone away. … Some have spoken (but quietly). They will soon be thunderous and unmistakable. Very amazing stuff.

          • Oh and I love his autobiography. Also I just did his Ignatian Retreat for laymen at home. It’s better than all my prior retreats combined, many times. It’s his only other book in print in English that I could find, called “The Golden Key to Heaven.”

          • I have just looked up St Anthony Marie Claret and his is a most astounding life confronting many modern enemies. It is most strange that he is now so unknown; but probably part of Divine Providence. Thanks for motivating me to learn about him. It was timely as we are in this centenary year of Fatima, pondering increasing natural catastrophes and yearning for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
            (I recommend everyone here look up this very timely saint.)

    • But perhaps they have not spoken yet……. They will come from him or the Claretians. I had always assumed they already spoke. However, if they spoke, no one seems to have heard them. So, maybe they will soon speak. I hadn’t thought of that. HIs autobiography is amazing by the way.

      Reply
  46. I am a widow who is now married to a wonderful Catholic man whose previous wife was unfaithful, divorced him, and remarried. He is active in the church and a generous giver of time and money. Because of the Pope he can continue to take communion. If we go backwards our marriage will be considered adulterous as his petition for annulment was denied.

    Reply
    • Pope Francis does not get to change the 6th commandment. and so, as painful as it may be for you to hear, your relationship with this man IS adulterous.

      If you continue to have “marital” relations with this man you will both end up in hell, and it would be a failure of charity not to point this out to you in the clearest possible terms. If you really love this man, do you want him to be lost?

      Reply
    • Donna, it sounds like this man you call your husband is still married to his first wife. His annulment was denied, all the more evidence he is still married to her. You need to talk to a faithful priest in regards to this matter. A priest of the FSSP or SSPX or other traditional order is most likely to give you the unvarnished truth of the matter.

      Reply
    • Donna, please pray guidance. I see from your discus profile, you also seem to be advocating that someone should have used birth control to prevent a pregnancy. This if not the teaching of our Faith. Please also pray for me as I will pray for you.

      Reply
    • Donna, I take from your post that you are not Catholic but that your husband is. Regardless, you’re in a difficult situation, I understand that. Here is my suggestion. Sit down with this Catholic man and discuss honestly what others have already posted in reply to your message. My hunch is that he is probably bothered by this anomaly but refrains from bringing it up because he knows what it means; it’s a kind of avoidance we all practice at times in our life. The danger here is that this isn’t just any old kind of avoidance; it’s one that can have eternal consequences. Neither Jorge Bergoglio nor all the cardinals and bishops combined can change that. In fact, the only person going backwards nowadays is the pope by returning to an episode of history long past, and by at least implying that the heretics of the 1500s were somehow right concerning marriage. But everything we’ve seen since that time, the almost complete disintegration of the institution, shows us, if we still need showing, that the Protestants were dead wrong. It is good that both of you are active and generous givers in the Church. Don’t spoil it all by buying into this nonsense cooked up by Walter Kasper and others of his ilk.

      Reply
      • Precisely. This is not a Church based on feelings: it is based on God’s truths. The discples, save one, suffered gruesome deaths for the faith and would not recant. Now we’re told it’s too much to expect of, too painful for, their supposed co-religionists in our day to refrain from having sex? Really?

        That absurdity of that claim should be enough to silence any fool thinking about declaring it. But then, we are not dealing with any fool, now are we? We are dealing with Satan and a bunch of narcissists who have been led to believe that this life is as good as it ever gets, that it is all about feelings and avoiding pain. We have a word for this philosphy: Epicureanism.

        Reply
    • Donna, why do you think that “[b]ecause of the Pope he can continue to take communion”? Even the heretical portions of Amoris Laetitia don’t give that permission. Even the heretics are promoting a period of discernment with a priest to assess whether you’re husband is really in a state of mortal sin. If he’s “a wonderful Catholic man” then he surely knows that your relationship is adulterous. Even Francis’ heretical loophole wouldn’t let him through.

      Reply