Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Head of Greek Bishops Accuses Four Cardinals of Heresy, Apostasy, & Schism

The number of attacks on the four cardinals for their presentation of dubia on Amoris Laetitia are mounting rapidly. Two out of three of the new American Cardinals — Joseph Tobin of Newark and Cardinal Cupich of Chicago — spoke out just yesterday against the four cardinals. Tobin, described the dubia as “troublesome” and went on to say,

The Holy Father is capturing the work of two synods, so if four cardinals say that two synods were wrong, or that somehow the Holy Father didn’t reflect what was said in those synods, I think that should be questioned. … just to simply reduce it to a ‘dubium,’ I think it is at best naive.

Cardinal Cupich took a more direct line of attack:

I think that if you begin to question the legitimacy or what is being said in such a document, do you throw into question then all the other documents that have been issued before by the other popes. So I think it’s not for the pope to respond to that, it’s a moment for anyone who has doubts to examine how they got to that position because it is a magisterial document of the Catholic Church.

That these newly minted cardinals so openly question the naivete and prudence of those who are by many years their senior is indicative of the power they feel as personal appointments of Francis. That they pose questions which seek to place the four cardinals at odds with the magisterium means that there is in an implication, at least, of schism – and even heresy.

But one bishop has now made those charges openly.

Fragkiskos Papamanolis, the bishop emeritus of Syros, Santorini, and Crete, and head of the Greek Bishops Conference, has now written an open letter to the four cardinals. Its language is striking and direct, and the accusations made therein are incredibly serious.

It is, to be blunt, the kind of language so many Catholics had hoped to see from the faithful prelates of the Church, sent in the direction of Rome.

Let it not be said that the commissars of the Dictatorship of Mercy are not men of conviction. Our translation of the full text of the letter follows.

Dearest brothers in the episcopate,

My faith in our God tells me that He cannot fail to love you. With the sincerity that comes from my heart I call you ‘dearest brothers.’

The letter you have sent to the Congregation to the Doctrine of the Faith and that was published last Monday on the site of L’Espresso has even made it to Greece.

Before publishing the document and, still more, before you drew it up, you ought to have presented yourself to the Holy Father Francis and requested that he remove you as members of the College of Cardinals.

Further, you should not have made use of the title of “Cardinal” to give prestige to what you have written, and this on account of coherence with your conscience and to alleviate the scandal you have given by writing privately.

You write that you are “deeply concerned about the true good of souls” and, indirectly, you accuse the Holy Father Francis “promoting some form of politics in the Church”. You ask that “that no one will judge us, unjustly.” He who would say the opposite of what you explicitly write would be judging you unjustly. The words you use have their meaning. The fact that you boast of the title of Cardinals does not change the meaning of the gravely offensive words for the Bishop of Rome.

If you are “deeply concerned about the true good of souls” and moved by “an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful”, I, dearest brothers, am “deeply moved by the true good of your souls”, for your double most grave sin:

  • the sin of heresy (and of apostasy? This, in fact, is the way schisms begin in the Church). From your document, it appears clearly that, in practice you do not believe in the supreme magisterial authority of the Pope, strengthened by two Synods of Bishops coming from the whole world. It seems that the Holy Spirit inspires only you and not the Vicar of Christ and not even the Bishops gathered in Synod.
  • and also the more grave sin of scandal, given publicly to the Christian people throughout the whole world. Concerning this Jesus has said, “Woe to the man by whom scandal comes” (Mt 18:7). “It would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Mt 18:6).

Impelled by the charity of Christ, I pray for you. I ask the Lord to enlighten you to accept with simplicity of heart the magisterial teaching of the Holy Father Francis.

I fear that your mental categories will find sophisticated arguments to justify your work, so as not even to consider it a sin to be subjected to the Sacrament of Penance, and that you continue to celebrate every day the Holy Mass and to receive sacrilegiously the Sacrament of the Eucharist, while you are scandalized if, in specific cases, a divorced and remarried person receives the Eucharist, and you dare to accuse the Holy Father Francis of heresy.

You know that I participated in the two Synods of the Bishops on the family and I heard your interventions. I also heard the comments that one of you made, during the break, about an affirmation contained in my intervention in the synod hall, when I said, “To sin is not easy.” This brother (one of you four), speaking with his interlocutors, modified my affirmations and put in my mouth words that I didn’t say. Further, you gave my declaration an interpretation that could not be gathered in any way from what I had affirmed.

Dearest brothers, may the Lord enlighten you to recognize as soon as possible your sin and to repair the scandal you have given.

With the charity of Christ, I greet you fraternally.


+ Frankiskos Papamanolis, o.f.m. cap

Bishop emeritus of Syros, Santorini, and Crete
President of the Episcopal Conference of Greece


(Translation provided by Roberto Tomasso. Several minor updates to the translation have been made since publication.)

388 thoughts on “Head of Greek Bishops Accuses Four Cardinals of Heresy, Apostasy, & Schism”

  1. Did anyone not think this would happen?

    It MUST happen.

    Praise GOD it IS happening if by this way the truth can be more clearly presented.

    Look, our fat, spiritually lazy, sodomy-ignoring “orthodox” prelates have MADE this happen by not protecting the Magesterium starting from the bell that tolled the end of the Vatican 2 Council.

    So be it and bring it on.

  2. None of the defenders of Pope Francis have yet attempted themselves to answers put forth in the dubia. To me, that is the crux of the matter. The rest is just White Noise.

    • Correct.

      We all know the parallels between PF and Hilary and the Democrats… LOL.

      Here’s another…

      PF will allow his friends to fight for him just as Hillary allowed the media to run her campaign. He isn’t crawling out of his hole to answer questions past Popes in history would have answered gleefully. He will hide and allow the Cupich’s and whatnot to make his case for him.

      As you say, it is all just White Noise.

      We’ll have to put up with a lot of it before this thing is done.

      • So I’m not the only one who can’t help seeing similarities between the way some people in the Church operate and the way some people in politics operate. It really is uncanny.

        Such times we live in!

        Nevertheless, I’m still shocked at the LANGUAGE this bishop uses. He keeps saying “dearest brothers” at the same time he condemns and accuses in shocking terms. HE is the one who seems to entertain no doubt whatsoever that he is right and that those he accuses are wrong. His utter certainty that they are in “sin” is breathtaking.

        • Liberals, both secular and ecclesiastical, exhibit the same MO: deny, delay, distract, distort, and when all else fails, denigrate.

        • Absolutely! How can one NOT SEE the correlation between the radical left in our political system and ‘all the Pope’s men’? Who do they think they’re fooling? Just like radical left, these prelates actually believe that the faithful don’t have eyes to see, ears to hear, nor brains to think with! And…….just like the radical left, they avoid the issue offering no ‘dialogue’ about the problem at hand and just go on the attack.

        • You are right. The language this bishop uses is scandalous and in reality an ad hominem or personal attack with no reference to the substance of the 5 dubia. The fact that he has recourse to logical fallacies only goes to show the weakness of his position. He needs some fraternal correction himself as what he writes is totally inappropriate. Has he ever hear of “parresia”, which is in the New Testament in several places, and it means frankness and openness, which should be the manner of dealing with one another in the Church and not political correctness? Has he ever read what Vatican II says about the right of all the faithful to have recourse to their Pastors in what concerns them regarding the good of the Church, something also taken into Canon Law from Vatican II. Has he ever read what Blessed Paul VI wrote in his encyclical Eccesliam Suam, where he states that “dialogue is the way of the Church”? After all, there is a saying attributed to Cardinal Gasparri, the one in charge of the formulation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law which goes “quod non est scriptum non est in hoc mundo”, “what isn’t in writing does exist”. So what is wrong with a written submission? It is necessary. Has he read what is in St. Matthews’s Gospel regarding fraternal correction or what St. Thomas Aquinas teaches about it when he states that at times it is not only permitted but necessary to correct a “Prelate”? What the four cardinals have done is respectful, and perfectly in accord with Scripture and the teaching of the Church, something this bishop seems to ignore.

          • I think his reason is at the end of his letter. He felt slighted when he was challenged when he said sinning wasn’t easy! Where did he get that from? Just an unthinking line to say.

          • BISHOP PAPAMANOLIS reacted with pride and vanity. What a shame for one who claims to be a spiritual descendant of St. Francis of Assisi, a member of the Franciscan Capuchin order. I wish and hope and pray that more priests and cardinals and bishops join the MAGNIFICENT FOUR who acted out of true love for the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

        • They are reading from the same Satanic script. It’s called “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Also the work of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. Alinsky was Barack Obama’s topic when he was an adjunct lecturer (not a professor) at the University of Chicago. We should all be familiar with this material so that we will recognize the tactics when they are used and be prepared to prevent or counter them.

    • “The Second Coming” – W.B. Yeats

      “Turning and turning in the widening gyre

      The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

      Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

      Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

      The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

      The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

      The best lack all conviction, while the worst

      Are full of passionate intensity.

      Surely some revelation is at hand;

      Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

      The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

      When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

      Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert

      A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

      A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

      Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

      Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.

      The darkness drops again; but now I know

      That twenty centuries of stony sleep

      Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

      And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
      Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

  3. Pope Francis will continue to employ his loyalists to publicly defame the Four Cardinals. Unless he wants to either abandon his entire agenda or completely discredit himself his only option is to refuse to answer the dubia while continuing his ad hominem attacks on the “doubters” in the press.

    He realizes that most of those who are opposed to his agenda won’t openly take him on, whether because of the prestige of his office, a prudential decision to “live to fight another day”, or because they just don’t have the guts. In the end, he wins by stonewalling. Meanwhile, he is moving with deliberate speed now to remove and/or marginalize all who are not in sync with his agenda.

    The Four Cardinals have posed very tough questions. He can’t answer 2-5 “yes” without demolishing his own agenda because by doing so he acknowledges that the authoritative teaching of St. John Paul II still stands. And he can’t answer 2-5 “no” without utterly rejecting the pontificates of St. John Paul II and Benedict, which would utterly and permanently demolish his own credibility.

    You have to understand what is going on here. Communion for the divorced and remarried is only the vehicle for a much larger and more radical agenda. Pope Francis and his allies in the St. Gallen Mafia despise certain aspects of the St. John Paul II / Benedict Magisterium and have planned from the beginning to overturn it – particularly, the teaching of Veritatis Splendor. They saw Vatican II as a break from the Church’s prior teaching on morality and Veritatis Splendor demolished all of their hopes for a “new” morality based on situational ethics and historical circumstances.

    They have waited for decades for a chance to undermine Veritatis Splendor and they are now on the brink of achieving their goal. They had basically given up and then suddenly Benedict resigned and they were absolutely astounded that Bergoglio was elected to succeed him. They could not believe this turn of events, and they truly are convinced that it was the work of the Holy Spirit affirming their agenda.

    Now that they are in power, they absolutely will not give up or change course. They see the teaching of Veritatis Splendor which affirms the existence of intrinsic evils and which rejects situational ethics as a terrible mistake (probably instigated more by Ratzinger, whom they utterly despise, than by John Paul). They are here to “set things right” and to finally achieve the goals of the Council that were frustrated for so long by two “conservative” popes.

    • Yeah, but we all know, God has the ace up His sleeve, to use a phrase. Pray our Rosaries for Holy Mother Church. She certainly needs it at this time (says I, a great sinner!)

    • “You have to understand what is going on here. Communion for the divorced and remarried is only the vehicle for a much larger and more radical agenda.”

      Cardinal Pell said exactly this at the first Synod – he said that communion for the D&R was just a stalking horse for the endorsement of homosexuality and “gay marriage”. Shame he’s tied up with these fictitious abuse allegations. Its almost as if they had been engineered to resurface at this time.

      • Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said: In politics, nothing happens by accident. And for that remark he was almost assassinated.

        (If I find the source for this, I’ll post it.)

  4. Sounds like a throw down to me. I say this guy and one of the four take off the miters and meet behind St. Peters for some serious dialogue. The one left standing has the Holy Spirit with his right hook. Time to settle this like men. St. Nicholas, pray for us.

    • On a more serious note, look how afraid these men are of the answers to these simple questions. The answers can send their souls to hell. They know that well. Thus, they will not answer the questions. As if God can’t see what’s in their hearts.

    • Troparion, Tone 4: The truth of your deeds made you for your flock a rule of faith* and an image of meekness,* a teacher of continence.* And so you gained the heights through humility,* riches through poverty,* father and bishop Nicholas.* Intercede with Christ our God* for the salvation of our souls.

      Troparion, Feast of St. Nicholas (and used almost every Thursday of the year, with a few exceptions)

      And here’s a really good one from Royal Doors (sung to the tune of “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus” (VERY different lyrics, though):

  5. What a rude man! This is sad because this discord in the Church is the work of so called Pope Francis entirely! If his heart was in the right place, he would have met with the Cardinals and resolve his question. He is a Judas and nothing else

  6. Lines are being drawn. If this goes sideways, as in splits in two, at least God, in His mercy, will have used the very man responsible for the splitting as – irony of ironies – His instrument for ensuring a safe haven vis-à-vis clarifying matters on the SSPX.

  7. Sadly it seems that the goats are being sorted from the sheep or the chaff from the wheat. May the good Lord have mercy on those that seem to think that AL was a well written and truthful document.

  8. This notion of respectfully questioning the Pope as being something heretical is nonsense. The notion of respectfully (privately or openly) disagreeing with the Pope and voicing this disagreement as something scandalous is contrary to our Tradition, and Scripture…Old and New Testaments. This is the type of talk I expect to hear out of Canada (as in “such and such is non debatable and if one does debate it or question it this person is a hater”) not from our Church. Not to mention, none of the Dubia questions have yet been answered by any Bishop or Cardinal. But somehow many find time to make personal attacks? No answers that reference the subject matter. We have lost our capacity to civilly debate. And for this to be the case for the Church is telling of how much the secular world has negatively influenced us. Its as if im listening to adolescents argue. Firstly, subject your anger and focus it in the direction in which it should go, and if your anger doesn’t drive your mind and spirit to respectfully answer honest questions many are pondering then your anger is not righteous anger. I have not spent a day in seminary yet I know this truth. Honestly brethern, we will have to look to Africa, China, Easter Euroupe and the Middle East for the majority of the conservative Bishops and Cardinals as those nation’s faith have been tested time and time again. But for us who make up the “first” world, we have long been to laxed and misinformed by our comfortable societies.

  9. None of the arguments in the above article made by those who are attacking the Four Cardinal’s have any intellectual merit, they are all straw men awaiting the match:

    Cardinal Tobin:”… just to simply reduce it to a ‘dubium,’ I think it is at best naïve.”

    They have not reduced both synods or Amoris Laetitia to a dubium, to be precise there are, for now, 5 dubia raised and even that is not a simple reduction of anything. They are saying that we have 5 doubts about what Amoris Laetitia states in regard to these areas of Catholic Teaching and they would like those positions to be clarified so that the Church is not divided by confusion regarding Her perennial doctrines. It seems to me that Cardinal Tobin is the one making a simple reduction of things to fit a narrative that is insulting to all Faithful Catholics. More of a Jack booted thug approach to Church governance.

    Cardinal Cupich: “I think that if you begin to question the legitimacy or what is being said in such a document, do you throw into question then all the other documents that have been issued before by the other popes.”

    Excuse me? So to be clear, is the Cardinal saying that every time any prelate ever submitted a dubium in regard to a teaching of the Church for the sake of Doctrinal clarity or Pastoral practice that prelate was questioning the entire deposit of Faith and every magisterial act and teaching? Really? That is sophomoric sophistry at work and not reason. If I have a question about an algebraic equation (does X = that or this) does that mean I am calling into question Algebra itself? Or all of Mathematics?

    And the emeritus Archbishop of Greece: Accusations of heresy, apostasy, schism and sacrilegious communions and offering the Holy Mass unworthily and giving scandal simply because the Cardinals raised 5 dubia in regard to an Apostolic Exhortation, the action of which is perfectly in accord with Church governance and is a time honored format for clarifying teaching ? Furthermore, how can they have given scandal to the faithful when they have committed no sin or crime? Is there a Church discipline or teaching that says Cardinals may not ask questions of the Roman Pontiff, privately or publicly? Um, NO. In fact that is part of their role in assisting the Pope. The question is: How can a retired archbishop not know this?

    What this really appears to be on behalf of the Greek Emeritus Archbishop is: He was called out for something stupid he said at one of the Synods and is now taking his revenge.

    • What this really appears to be on behalf of the Greek Emeritus Archbishop is: He was called out for something stupid he said at one of the Synods and is now taking his revenge.

      THIS is so sad…………. he should swallow his pride and not be seeking revenge but then it’s always easy to see things when it’s not my own personal situation.

        • Next it will be the Lutherans, the C of E, the church of Scotland and all of the protestant factions. I cannot believe that we live in a time when Jesus Christ himself is being crucified by his own church. It’s a depressing situation beyond comprehension. Please Saint Michael restore Our Lord’s Church.

        • This guy is not a Greek Catholic – he is a Greek Latin Catholic of the OFM capuchin variety i.e. of that most corrupt variant of the Franciscans who are on the verge of bankruptcy.

          • Really, this is like watching one of those suspense movies. Unbelievable and Out of control!
            God help us!

          • This is more like a soap opera.

            Sad to see Archbishop vs. Archbishop

            They are suppose to be servants to Christ’s flock to help them get to heaven.

            Lord Jesus, have mercy on Your Church.

            Read Catholic history, many saints were attacked by their own fellow religious brothers and sisters.

            And what is wrong with clarification? Anyways, if I remember correctly the beginning of AL specifically states that the entire tradition of the Church is to be taken into consideration when reading the encyclical.

            Seems some bishops forget this statement.

            Even the devil used the Bible against Jesus. It doesn’t surprise me that a bishop would use the Bible against another bishop. It’s like Protestants who take one passage and forget the rest of the Bible.

            Lord Jesus, send forth the Holy Spirit to help all of us conquer the sin of Pride.

            St. Faustina, pray for us.

          • Margaret, this is a link to a website on the hierarchy and it reveals that he was ordained in the Latin rite and made bishop in 1974 under the reign of Paul VI.

            I have got my feelers out with some Greek Catholic (Eastern Rite) clergy to find out what view is being taken of the dubia among the Greek Greeks.

          • Is this the same branch as that of Fr Volpi who was tasked with the destruction of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate?

    • Father, sounds like the Archbishop has had this anger built up in him for a while (he referenced some incident that occured at the previous synod that he did not like). It’s as if to many of our Bishops and Cardinals, the only magisterial document that exists to them is AL and cleverly picked isolated canon laws and a few quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas. As if all of Church teaching no longer matters.

        • The very same cardinal who accused the four of questioning the entire Deposit of Faith through their dubia clearly himself has demonstrated that he questions the entire Deposit of Faith prior to V2. Talk about hypocrisy.

        • They do so because they believe it, act it and lead accordingly. Might help explain the empty churches, millions of “ex-Catholics” and still more millions of CINO’s. As to actual Catholics? A dwindling minority at best.

    • One thing that has never been in doubt is that the pope is intellectually dishonest. He proved this once and for all by calling carbon dioxide a “pollutant.” His responding to yes-or-no questions with ad hominems is further proof.

      He has been systematically appointing “the worst priests he can find” to the episcopacy, and clearly choosing men for the College of Cardinals who are as intellectually dishonest as himself.

      • For the sake of the Church and all that is Holy and Good I would like to be able to refute this but I cannot. Though, no doubt, some of the Bishops are not the worst men he could find (though many appear to be.)

        • Father, I don’t think it’s intellectual dishonesty at work. These men have been taught what they believe. Over a hundred years of Modernism, the errors of Russia, poor philosophical training, a culture that reveres the ‘human person’…it’s all coming to a head now. O, and to say nothing about the glaring fact that these poor creatures don’t see any opposition worth bothering with. When you get away with something and it feels good, you go ‘forward.’ It must be wonderful to know you are on the winning team!!!

          It does seem astounding to actually read the words that are being directed at the Faithful, cardinals or lay. Right out of the Modernist playbook.

          I believe that we are in very grave trouble as Catholics. Time to support each other to find good parishes and circle the wagons.

          • Modernism itself is a form of intellectual dishonesty as one has to intentionally avoid logical reasoning in order to maintain a modernist position. Notice that all of the Four Cardinals’ detractors avoided the actual questions they raised? Notice that they all formulated arguments that are literally illogical and intentionally avoid the Object of the opposing position? That is intellectual dishonesty at work and it is a feature of Modernism.

    • The tone is mocking and degrading, which is why I believe they are Freemasons who finally reached their prize–the top of the hierarchy, the top of the Church, so they can begin their dirty work–The dismantling of the Church. Anne Catherine Emmerich describes some of this in her visions. Only demons would mock, not grown men, especially newly ordained Cardinals–if legitimate. They are well-aware of what Cardinal Burke and other true Churchmen stand for. We have been getting the same treatment from this pope by so many of his rejections and insults to those who defend and live the faith.

  10. Those two, Tobin/Cupich, are the fruit of post Vatll seminaries that taught anything and every thing but the Catholic faith. What scares me is that those two morons are sincere. They really believe they have the Catholic faith. Vatll “sowed the wind” and the church is “reaping the whirlwind.”

    • And so is Pope Francis. This is the real diffculty of our present moment. Francis is first Pope formed after VII . . . will/can the rest be any better?

      • Take heart! Jesus knocked Saul off the horse with blindness and His Voice to aid His fledgling Church. He could do the same to a future pope with even a mustard seed of faith….

      • I agree with you Maria. Jorge is also the fruit of those corrupt seminaries. I make no excuses for him. Truthfully, based on his 3 years of betrayal of Christ, I have to conclude that I am obliged to judge him in the “external forum”, that he really has no Catholic faith in His soul. That may seem like a contradiction, but it isn’t. I have an obligation to judge him by his words and actions, but, without a revelation from the Holy Spirit, there is no way for me to know the degree of his wilful rejection of the Catholic Church, nor to know what faith if any there is in His soul.

    • Parents have much more to do with it than seminaries.

      Men whose parents were educated AND orthodox generally emerge from seminary as Catholics.

      Men who are the first in their family to finish high school or college are more vulnerable to the Marxist garbage.

      • I agree with you on the preeminent influence of parents but level of education is not indicative of intellect or fortitude, or strong character.

  11. One of the end games for Francis is to achieve “unity” with the liberal faction of the Eastern Orthodox who allow for divorce and remarriage. Of course this would be a false unity. I hope some Byzantine Catholics speak up and counter the head of the Greek Bishops Conference.

  12. OFM Cap. Interesting. What an embarrassment to the founder of the Franciscans, St. Francis. I’m not sure what’s wrong with them, but the United States’ own “Cardinal OFM Cap.” is no better. It’s not as if they just posted a carelessly-written Facebook post. They wrote a formal letter, and made it public only after attempting to resolve the matter privately had failed.

    Charity demands that the Holy Father present the Faith in a way that is clear. If he thinks it is clear, but many think he is justifying sacrilege, then for the good of souls he must clarify. If he won’t, then those who love souls must admonish him to do so. What if he still won’t? I don’t know. The coming months will be interesting, to say the least. Pray for the Church. May the Good Shepherd defend the sheep from the wolf.

  13. “It is, to be blunt, the kind of language so many Catholics had hoped to see from the faithful prelates of the Church, sent in the direction of Rome.”

    Exactly. As is typical, the faithful prelates prefer the safe, silent route, hoping things take care of themselves, rather than path of direct, challenging action. This strategy is rarely successful when met with opposition that prefers direct confrontation.

  14. I fear this bishop suffers in a mental category of his own–memory loss. The bishops at the two Synods were DIVIDED, remember? What magisterial authority does a divided group of bishops strengthen?

  15. It is actually refreshing to encounter a little first-millennium parrhesia, and to know that we are finally done with 50 years of fake happy talk. I don’t know what makes these Catholic Greeks tick, but on the Orthodox side of the aisle, they are more relaxed on marital discipline, are they not? Maybe this is self-conscious hyper-papalsim, from a corner perennially sensitive on that subject.

    In this and other matters, we are entering a time of terrible clarity.

  16. Haven’t read the other comments yet, but might the Greek prelate be projecting “Plan B”? His words do seem to express a “boiling rage” reminiscent of Bergoglio’s reaction to the Four Cardinals. History will not be kind to the Greek and Cupich and company.

  17. Francis has given his answer through these men. The ball is now back in the court of the 4 Cardinals. If they hold fast, barring a Saul of Tarsus moment, this can only end in schism.

    • I doubt that Burke would pull a Lefebvre and lead a breakaway group. He and like-minded prelates would simply say that the original discipline is the true discipline and that AL fails to meet the requirements for an infallible dogmatic definition. In other words, they would remain in the fold as a voice of protest and not pursue a schism. Moreover, because a schismatic group already exists (SSPX) and has a global presence (albeit small, comparatively speaking), those who want to be schismatic already have an organization in which to be received, rendering a new schism very unlikely.

      • The SSPX is NOT in schism. Per Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos, they are in an “irregular” status. However, they express NO schismatic ideas or policies. They just think certain aspects of Vatican II are garbage. So do I.

        • “The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church” (Pope Benedict XVI). This may not mean technically “schismatic,” which others can debate, but it is still a very severe judgment by Pope Benedict: no canonical status and illegitimate ministries.

          • Still not in schism. Pope Benedict has not pointed out the doctrinal reasons for any “schism”. The SSPX has an issue with ertain NON-BINDING Vatican II documents…none of which is doctrinal. I would sooner go to Mass at a SSPX chapel than at most Novus Ordo parishes and I would do so with a clear conscience.

      • Don’t agree. The proposed Letter of Correction is likely to state that Pope Francis has taught error. That then forces people to agree or not agree, to follow PF or to pull back from him. Every Cardinal, Bishop and Priest will have to decide for himself and declare himself; the laity will also choose and align themselves with likeminded priests and Bishops. Some priests here say that we have been in undisclosed schism for decades because the full truth of the Faith has been omitted (in teaching) in many places (dioceses and parishes) – placing the Catholic faith on the same level as other religions. I cant see PF and his appointees giving up Rome any time soon, so holding to the Truth will require great trust in God’s providence. So the Church holding to the tradition does not leave the Church but simply claims to be the true Church; but from that point on every Catholic cannot claim to be unaware of the choice he had to make. Even the mainstream newspapers here are waiting for the next step to occur!

      • Your gripe with the SSPX not withstanding, implicit in your statement is the elephant you’re trying to avoid; namely, that if Francis refuses to confirm vis-a-vis the dubia that AL upholds the infallible teaching of the Church, he effectively outs himself as a heretic. And if that is the case, not only does the danger to souls — which first impelled these cardinals to act — become all the more acute, but there is also the real possibility that, by means of his heresy, Francis summarily loses the petrine office.

  18. I find it almost hilarious, if it weren’t so sad, that no one who objects to the dubia actually attempt to answer the dubia. It’s a series of simple questions that boil down to “Was the Church wrong or not?” I know this is obvious to us, but do these men clearly not see or are they really blinded by their agenda? I find this mind boggling. How can a person dedicate themselves to the Church as a priest and then bishop for their whole lives not truly believe the Catholic faith? It boggles my mind! Or are they truly evil men who seek the destruction of the Church? That level of wickedness also boggles my mind. I just can’t go there. There is no sense to this!

  19. Wow, who knew that it was such an unspeakable crime to ask for clarification on a document? Personally, I think all BIshops who fall in the bottom 25% of seminary vocations per capita of their diocese should be deposed. That would get rid of most of the heresiarchs.

  20. The hypocrisy here is staggering. The 4 cardinals did take their respectful request directly and privately to Francis. This bishop, however, vents his spleen in an open letter. Stay classy, Frankiskos.

  21. This Dubia is now the main force driving the schism (prophesied at Akita), based on following the truth or not. Notice how the heretical side accuses the faithful side of heresy and schism. Lies and projection.

    • Dear EO, Yes exactly. As Mark Twain once said “You do not need a good memory when speaking the truth”. Sadly, the bad memory seems to fit with those in the category of communism, liberalism and socialism.

    • Are you saying Burke & Co. are driving the schism via the Dubia, and thus are the heretical side?

      I don’t think that’s what you mean, but it could be read that way.

      • Definitely not. This Dubia is the instrument of the two-edged sword of truth, which the modernist Francis-ites accuse the faithful side of heresy and schism. Those cardinals submitting the Dubia are the faithful ones, while Francis-ites are the heretics who will separate, however they will own the Church buildings for the most part.

      • Jesus said that He came not to bring peace but a sword, meaning that His Truth causes division because of those who reject it. Same principle here.

  22. This latest entry in the fight is interesting on a number of
    levels. First, we have more confirmation (if we needed it) that the crisis
    provoked by the HF and Amoris Laetitia is only intensifying and that Our Lady’s
    prophecies of bishops opposed to bishops grow truer every day. This storm is
    not going to blow over barring these 4 Cardinals and the larger silent minority
    behind them completely bow down (unlikely at this point).

    Second, this eastern Catholic bishop’s response is very curious.
    Though not excusable, one might understand how there would tend to be more
    sympathy to the Kaspar proposal in the East, seeing as how the Eastern Orthodox
    churches in general have adopted the principle of ‘oikonomia’ to allow
    adulterers access to the Sacraments through ecclesiastical divorces with up to
    2 remarriages allowed (an approach which was the norm for the uniate churches
    up until only the last few centuries). However, the strident attack on orthodox
    Catholic Cardinals combined with this sycophantic ultramontanism is from my
    understanding of relations between Rome and the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox
    and Catholic) very out of line and not in keeping with the more synodal
    approach favored in the East.

    Third, this is speculation, but I wonder if all of this is not
    going to somehow in the workings of divine providence hasten the reconciliation
    of East and West. From my readings, it appears that Eastern Orthodoxy has never
    been completely comfortable with the approach they have taken to marriage and
    divorce (and now contraception) and in fact, there have been Orthodox prelates
    who have taken a very traditional Catholic approach to the question of who may
    approach the Sacraments. I wonder if this issue along with the lamentable actions
    of an increasingly autocratic Roman Pontiff may not stir up the pot in some way
    that Providence may use to actually foster unity in the near future.

    • I hope you are right. I know you’re correct in that ROCOR, for instance, often takes a different line regarding oikonomia than does, say the Greek Orthodox Church or the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.

  23. Maybe Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation made sense in Greek…?!! No, this Bishop, whilst having the kind of approach/tone that I wish we’d see more of from others from time to time, clearly suffers from Papolotry and doesn’t understand what magisterium is. I can imagine even his Orthodox counterparts must be having a giggle as it’s just embarrassing to hear this from a Catholic Bishop. All bluster and no brain. Give the guy another glass of ouzo and a pat on the back before bed. Seems to be an intellectual problem and hopefully Cdl Burke and Co will rapidly put him in his place. But, indeed, the fight is on. It’s the only way.

  24. With all this talk about the “bishops against bishops and cardinals against cardinals,” I think it’s important to point out that the election of Pope Francis took place forty years after the apparitions of Our Lady at Akita

  25. A couple of things that might be relevant as to why this Bishop has come out with this stuff:

    1) PF has been giving a lot of attention to the whole migrant problem that Greece is taking the brunt of. So just general defence of his mate. Irrespective of theology.

    2) This Bishop and his fellow Bishops no doubt come up against the very different approach taken by the Orthodox visavis divorce and remarriage/reception of the sacraments on a daily basis (mixed marriages) and it would be much simpler for them if they didn’t have to fight the heresy of the Greek Orthodox. Not that they probably do. Looking for an easy life?

  26. Apparently the four Cardinals are not free to ask for a simple clarification
    without receiving insults and accusations from Francisbishops and Cardinals.
    Why do PF and his buddies feel so threatened ?

  27. So submitting dubia about ambiguities in AL (that have given rise to different disciplines in different dioceses) amounts to heresy and scandal? The true scandal lies in the Pope’s hard-hearted refusal to answer the dubia.

    This letter is just an embarrassment, as vitriolic as it is poorly reasoned. Goodness, that’s the best they can do?

  28. The teaching of the Church is that you cannot receive communion while
    unrepentant of serious sin. Pope Francis can’t change that, no matter
    how hard he tries or how many faithless bishops want to back him up.
    Although, of course, the conditions for mortal sin must be met for a sin
    to actually be mortal, a person still is not to receive communion if
    they are unrepentant of having sex with someone who is not their spouse.

    I know, that doesn’t sound “fair” or “easy.” Life isn’t fair, and it
    definitely isn’t easy. It wouldn’t be worthwhile if it was easy. Also,
    it wasn’t fair for us to sin against an infinitely perfect God, yet He
    has chosen not to destroy us. Pope Francis and the faithless bishops who
    want to give what is holy to dogs would do well to remember that.

    I think we ought to be very careful about trying to tell God that He or
    His Church needs to change because it’s unfair or too difficult.

  29. Saint Nicholas and Saint Athanasius pray for our Church and for these four Cardinals who follow in your footsteps and are surrounded by Modernist heretics as you were surrounded by Arian heretics. In Jesus Name I Pray. Amen!

  30. A very irritating letter from the Greek . Well he was at the Synods and apparently was not onside with the interventions even at that stage. I hope the 4 will act soon as words against them will increase probably.

  31. +Tobin, +Cupich and +Papamanolis sount like Bergoglio yes men. Their opinions hold no weight with me. We have +Wuerl to thank for +Cupich.

  32. I have the same frustrations as I read these comments, but since I believe that Benedict is still the pope, there is peace in my home. Francis is not on the list of the popes according to St Malachy and lightning striking the Vatican twice on the day of Benedict’s “resignation” are two clues that all is not as it seems. C’mon folks…think about it. Benedict decides to quit and instead of returning to Bavaria to be with his priest brother and write books, he stays at the Vatican, wears white and uses the term Pope Emeritus. Something is going on spiritually behind the scenes to cleanse the Church from these heterodox prelates who hid their true intentions under John Paul and Benedict. You might say this is a mini General Judgment – we get to see all of the characters who have been supporting freemasonry, homosexuality, and marxism in a clandestine manner now out in the open. A schism may be in the offing in the near future, but it will all be resolved by the end of 2017. Pray for these men that they return to the orthodox faith before it is too late and the Father lowers the boom.

    • Well Benedict DID say, in a later interview, that he desired to not be called Pope Emeritus but simply “Father Benedict.” I believe, also in the same interview, that he stayed in the Vatican so that he might be living in the shadow of the reigning pontiff and not distant from him as a show of humility. From further statements I’m under the impression that, although he is no longer pope, he still feels he has a part to play, in prayer, in the care for the universal church. That last is speculation on my part though.

      As Steve has pointed out before, it doesn’t matter in a lot of ways right now whether Benedict is still the Pope or Francis rightly is or there is no Pope right now. The damage is still being done.

      • Thanks for the thoughts. In my opinion, the “damage” is actually a purification of the Church as it has been apparently, but not actually, been handed over to the power of Satan who is confusing the faithful. These foolish prelates who follow Francis are doing the work of the Devil, but as this is the 100th anniversary of Fatima, his reign of obfuscation will soon be over and Francis will be exposed. All of this modernism and freemasonry will be nothing but a bad chapter in Church history.

      • Prisoner of the Vatican – fulfilling his appointed role for the purification. I bet he would speak more freely if he was in Germany.

        By the way, I want a vigorous discussion on why God has to respect a papal resignation. It is just an assumption that people make. Especially in this age of the rejection of fatherhood, it would be appropriate if God rejected Benedict’s plans. With only one resignation before in the history of the papacy, the exception proves the rule that unlike priests and bishops, the Holy Father is supposed to be a lifetime position. I do not cease to be a father to my children because of infirmity or illness. How about any of you? Do you plan on finding a sub before you die?

        • That is really a powerful thought.

          God bless you for it.

          Very empowering. I am a father and now, praise God, a grandfather. I led my adult kids to the Catholic faith and now am praying they stay amidst the queer nation that it appears to be. But I will NEVER give up on my kids and grandkids.

          Why would Papa Benedict jump ship on his “kids”?

          Because what I find in the Catholic faith is lots of REALLY BAD “fathers” among the ordained. And that is why I love our FSSP priests so much; Because they are good fathers. They don’t just tell their kids they are wonderful. They kick our asses every now and then when we need it. Like my Dad did.

  33. This bishop strikes me as (rightly) interpreting the dubia as an indirect accusation of heresy, apostasy, and schism against those who support Kasper’s proposal. He’s just projecting back the accusation. If I’m not mistaken, there was a split among bishops to allow this heretical practice, and a lot of bishops remain opposed to it. How is this going to play out? Just a bitter tennis match of accusations? I see this carrying on until this pope or a future pope corrects the heresy. Schism is in the air.

  34. I pray that Cardinal Burke, the 3 other Cardinals, and most highly visible people completely ignore all defenders of PF. Re issue the Dubia over and over, even a thousand times. The rest of us will work it out. Cardinals need to stay focused and ignore the demons of the air coming out of the mouths of these mouth pieces. They are nothing but a tool of distraction. Focus…Cardinal Burke and the others need only to pursue truth. Even Jesus remained silent to Herod! Cardinal Burke has the power of God behind him and has no need to answer anyone of the Herods speaking. Re issue the Dubia inquiry, which is the best way to visibly show all they are not answering it. Nothing else matters. The rest is fog….fog that smells like sulphur. Show the good Catholics how to stay focused! We can do this!

  35. Having accused the four cardinals of heresy, borderline apostasy, fomenting a possible schism, making sacrilegious communions and scandalizing the faithful (at least he stopped just short of saying that some of them were also on the grassy knoll), he ends by sending his “fraternal greeting”. I like a bishop with a sense of humour.

  36. I meet my son-in-law up at the local parish Church to pray the Rosary every Tuesday at noon and today it really struck me.

    We need now, more than ever, to pray for Jorge Bergoglio Pope Francis.

  37. When I see both sides of the argument, the 4 Cardinals have stronger arguments, they used bible verses, church tradition, previous Pope’s writing, while the other side (the ones who argue against the 4 Cardinals) don’t. Their arguments are more ad hominem attacks. Their strongest argument is: because the Pope says so. And to make things worse… Pope Francis, who happens to be the center of this argument is SILENT.

    Keep on fighting the good fight!

  38. This letter is ridiculous in that there is no way to accuse the 4 cardinals of heresy. What he should have done is ask the following questions that I’ve seen floating around Facebook that really need a response from the 4 cardinals. 1) Apparently, JPII allowed for the schismatic Orthodox to receive communion in the Catholic Church. Since the Orthodox allow divorce and remarriage, does that mean the Church already allows the divorced and remarried to receive communion. 2) I’ve also heard that the Church allowed those Orthodox who became Catholic to continue the practice of divorce and remarriage. Is that true and, again, what does it mean if She did?

    • No to both of those statements. If someone from the Orthodox Church approached the Catholic Church for Holy Communion they would have to conform to the Catholic Discipline for receiving Holy Communion (which they wont do anyway.) Nor is it true that Orthodox Christians who convert to Roman Catholicism are allowed to follow their former heretical practice/s, like divorce and remarry or contracept: they need to accept all of Catholic Doctrine and Dogma.

      • Yes thank you! Is there a document that you can cite for this? It’s being said on FB that the Church doesn’t require the Orthodox to give up the second or third marriage to receive communion in the Catholic Church. Also, it was said that the converts who have been allowed to divorce and re-marry by the Orthodox are not required to seek an annulment when they convert and are allowed to continue relations with their current “spouse”. Any help you can provide in this area would be appreciated!

        • I am not aware of any document that allows the Orthodox converts to maintain a 2nd or 3rd marriage without the previous being declared null and there would need to be an official document giving some kind of permission for anything even hinting of that. I am giving a Parish mission at the moment, so I will need to look into this more when I can.

          But without a document from the appropriate Congregation/s there is no such permission.

          Ask the Facebookers to show the Documents that grant such permission.

  39. Why can’t PF answer the questions being asked by these cardinals? I don’t think they are trick questions or questions that cannot be answered with a “yes” or “no”. Is he too proud to do so? He must realize as pope, he has a duty to respond. But he won’t. He didn’t believe these Four Cardinals had the guts to call him out in his little game of manipulation to slyly promote heresy. He was not prepared for this event in my opinion. So, he is silent and hoping his henchmen will do the work and respond as this bishop has. Francis knows, too, that the majority of the world is fancied with him. He has played this very well.

    ONE little problem: The Holy Spirit will protect our Church. Yes, Francis, the Spirit is full of surprises.
    Our Church, the Church of Christ is here to stay as difficult as it may get for many of the faithful.
    But, we the faithful are here to stay! And boy would it be swell to have a few more cardinals on board with the Lord and with us. But, then……..we shall carry on and defend our Church no matter how few prelates are there to lead us. May God help this man.

    • He knows that if he responds, he will have to admit to what we all know is true, namely, that he is trying to change de facto Church teaching without actually changing Church teaching officially. I believe you are also correct, cs, that pride is playing a huge factor. He never actually thought anyone would have the stones to formally challenge him, and we have all heard stories of his massive ego, hair-trigger temper, and pettiness/vindictiveness toward those who disagree with him.

      The man doesn’t even have the courage to face the problem of his own creation head on. Instead, he is using whatever surrogates he can find, perhaps with the promise of filthy lucre to motivate them to stay on message. How anyone could possibly still have respect for him is beyond me, though there are still those who simply do not want to accept the obvious.

    • “He must realize as pope, he has a duty to respond.”

      He will not answer because he does not want to overtly affirm or deny the magisterium of the Church. He is like the insincere Pharisees who would not answer Jesus’ question about whether John’s baptism was of heavenly or human origin, because the scheming Pharisees prejudged both alternatives as disadvantageous to them. If Francis affirms the magisterium, then he cannot continue to tilt against it; if he denies it, then he has too much of the crowd to fear.

  40. I thought dubia are traditionally sent to the CDF. Maybe they’ll be the one to answer the question once and for all. ie Mueller. Francis would be forced to keep his heretical position to himself.

  41. The good bishop is seriously wrong in his letter to the four cardinals. And I thought that Modernism only sprouted and flourished in the West. Apparently, I am greatly mistaken in my assessment. Of course, in fairness, the bishop is but only one prelate. However, many other prelates, sadly, will also come out against these four brave cardinals. Honestly, I do not give a rat’s a$% about these successors to the Apostles who would support a pope who is obviously out to destroy the Church at any and all costs. And, for the bishop to say that these four cardinals might cause a schism to happen is nonsense. Anyone with a brain knows all good and well that the “schism” happened at Vatican II. Only now will the true wolves and the true shepherds come out of the shadows and into the light. I pray for Bergoglio and all the bishops, cardinals, priests, deacons, religious, and laity who put their very souls at risk of eternal damnation for denying Christ, His Apostles, and the teachings passed on directly from them. May God have mercy on their souls.

    • Get the hell off this site. You are a heretic and a sedevacanists. Go spew your herisy somewhere else. Causing more confusion and consternation. Enough!

      • What are you saying? Perhaps you’re a troll. And- enough of what? Enough of my support for the truly faithful prelates? The truly faithful priests? And to call me a heretic or a sedevacantist? C’mon. Let’s get real. If you’ve read other items I have posted both here and elsewhere, you would know I am nothing of the sort you call me. Perhaps you need to get off this site.

        • I think that the great distress that many are facing over the constant attacks on the Faith by members of the hierarchy are causing people to lose their tempers and read into thing others are saying.

          I think everyone here whose is Catholic should do their best to try an restrain their irascible tendencies (of which I have too) with each other. Let us remember that being a Christian is about embracing the Cross and also being willing to suffer with one another patiently while we endure our trials.

          • Thank you, Father. I completely understand as I, too, am in great spiritual distress over the situation of Our Blessed Lord’s Church. Let us keep one another in our prayers:-)

          • In 1968, only ONE bishop in the U.S. taught Humanae Vitae. Not as “official Church teaching” as many weasely bishops did, but as the TRUTH taught by the Church. Patrick A. Cardinal O’Boyle, Archbishop of Washington.

            In the 80’s and 90’s, only ONE bishop in the U.S. wrote letters for police, informing them and their superiors that REMOVING BODIES BLOCKING ABORTION CLINIC DOORS is a mortal sin. It is direct formal collaboration in abortions. That was Bishop René Gracida.

            The bishops of 1968 chose their successors, as did the bishops of the next generation, and the next. According to Pio Laghi, Americans have had this privilege, unique among nations, for decades.

            Is it any wonder that the vast majority of American bishops voted to give themselves the privilege of COMMITTING MORTAL SIN? That’s right. They did. Check out the document “Catholics in Political Life.”

            In that document, the bishops say that a bishop may “legitimately” give Communion to pro-abortion politicians. That is a mortal sin! Check Cardinal Burke’s famous article, in which he proves this with excruciating thoroughness.


            People say the episcopacy needs reform. When the vast majority of American bishops are walking around in the state of mortal sin–which they have given themselves WRITTEN PERMISSION to commit–truer words could not be spoken.

      • These are very troubling times and with that comes great distress over our Holy Mother the Church. Seeing Bishops and Popes and Cardinals behaving like 3rd graders fighting over a toy is enough to make any faithful Catholic be both filled with sorrow and anger. However, Our Lord desires us to have peace in our souls because we have entirely entrusted everything to Him through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

        Jesus is Lord and King and the Church is His Bride, if he desires that She should be winnowed then He knows what He is doing and a winnowing shall take place.

        Don’t allow yourself to be upset with what other people post on the internet, it builds up over time and all blends and before you know it your blowing your stack on someone and its mostly based on all of the upset over what others have posted.

        Offer all of your suffering and distress to the Lord in union with Him for the salvation of as many souls as possible, and don’t leave out the people who post things that cause you distress.

    • The “schism happened at V2” sounds sedevacantist. Rather, the great apostasy was greatly accelerated by the spirit of V2, using its own ambiguities, though lesser than Francis’ stuff.

  42. You are all wrong.

    This is merely the Jesuit method in action.

    Pope Francis is more orthodox than Pope St Pius X.

    He’s just using this method to foster dialogue in order to celebrate the diversity of the prelature and to allow them to accompany each other to the fullness of a merciful outcome.


    • I know a woman who has delivered almost EXACTLY this speech in my presence THRICE. She shouts me down if I try to get a word in edgewise. And she GRINS the whole time. It’s as though some spirit has seized control of her. The Spirit of Bergoglio.

  43. I wish they put this fire and brimstone speech into effect when we all learned our priests were sexually abusing our children. To me that is as grave a sin as it gets and is only surpassed by open satan worshiping. This is more of p!$$ing contest in which either they refuse to address their issues, rebuking rather than enlighten/dialogue, and shows a superficial at best respect for them. In fact, it borders on blasphemy when they use the “I’ll pray for you” and really do not mean it. Frankly, they all do scandal to the faith, and are ridiculous on top of it all. Jesus can’t come quick enough.

    • You put it so well. And I mean it from the heart as one who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of priests when I was young.

      • Oh Al, I’m so sorry to hear that! Yet I know that getting it out in the open is part of the healing process.

        May the Most Holy Virgin shield all of us under Her Holy Omophorion!

      • I am so sorry for all the suffering you have/had to endure. I pray for your continued healing, and please know that you are loved just as you are. I have undying respect for the courage of all abuse survivors and eternal gratitude that against all odds your voices were finally heard and we now know this awful reality so that we can prevent it from ever happening again. You and all abused are precious in my eyes.

  44. With the Charity of Christ????? How incredibly sad for Our Lord……may we seek to repair to His Most Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of our Mother for the culpability that the “smoke of satan” makes these consecrated souls wallow in. Oh Lord, King of Kings…..have mercy on Your Church, its priests and this papacy.

  45. Good heavens! I want to say something, but words fail me. So this will have to do.

    God bless the four cardinals and their work, and God help His Church.

  46. Another misquote of scripture by your typical ignorant Catholic bishop:

    “and also the more grave sin of scandal, given publicly to the Christian people throughout the whole world. Concerning this Jesus has said, “Woe to the man by whom scandal comes” (Mt 18:7). “It would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Mt 18:6).”

    You might think a Greek named Fragkiskos Papamanolis would know what the Greek word skandalon means!

    “Scandal” is not when His Highness Francis is embarrassed or shamed into doing his job,

    A scandal is a stumbling block, snare, a cause of sin.

    There is no cause of sin or stumbling block or snare given to any Catholic by the act of simply asking for clarification on an important issue.

    The quote given above is a typical mis-quote of Sacred Scripture by an ignorant man, Mr. Papamanolis . Sadly, the entire clerical class of the Catholic Church seems too preoccupied to bother with studying the Bible.

  47. I’m quite confused by this round about reasoning. If the dubai are answered in a way that affirms the traditional teaching, then no one has rejected any mageristerium here, and we have clearly illustrated that that aemoris was confusing. Wouldn’t it be charitable to clarify that?

    If the dubai are answered in the other way, then is it not Aemoris which is denying magisterial, and how can you be upset with the cardinals for pointing that out?

    It all seems like a bunch of ad hominem nonsense until someone actually canswers the questions

  48. I applaud the Bishop emeritus of Syros for telling it like it is. The reforms PF is leading are entirely within church tradition and there is no need to fear the more pastoral, merciful approach he is proposing. Trust in the Lord, folks, do not rely upon your own understanding.

    • I try to be as sympathetic to the Pope’s position as I believe that is what is required of me by Church teaching. Having said that, all we ever hear is it is “entirely within church tradition blah blah blah”. Can you please explain to me HOW it is within church tradition? Specifics please.

      • See my reply to AK below, I can’t say it any better than the pope. If you believe the church is a living, breathing organism–which is consistent with church teaching–then how can you believe that the church must remain static, mired in outdated, medieval dominion theology?

        • God’s truth does not change, whether it is from medieval times or now or Apostolic times. The heresy of modernism says that truth evolves.

        • You are embarrassing yourself sir. The Lord Jesus Christ transcends time and space and the Church is to faithfully hand on all that He has given her. There is no outdating of Her teaching regarding the Blessed Sacrament, the Nature of Marriage and Sexuality or Penance (etc…..)

      • How is one sympathetic to heresy? It doesn’t follow. Is there a charitable response other than reproof?

        Isn’t our debt of obedience first to Christ, who called himself Truth?

    • You pervert mercy. Mercy is not indifference.

      What you satanic relativists deny is that the Church is either right or it’s wrong.

      There’s no in-between.

      If it was wrong before, Christ lied. If not, Bergoglio lies.

      • I get it, you hate the guy… right? And of course–“satanic relativists.” What a nice Christian thing to say… if the RCC doesn’t work out for you, rest assured you are just a few short steps from ISIS ideology… they would likely welcome you with open arms.

        • I knew that you would call my language hate. It’s a paraphrase of Christ. I imagine that you think that Matthew 16 is hateful. Of course you do. Jesus should have accompanied Peter in his sin? That’s about a perfect summary of your position.

          You clearly have no grasp of Christendom versus Islam. You have much to learn. No. The Church was not evil in defense of itself, of Christendom nor of the Holy Land. To fight evil is not evil.

          Your entire view is moral relativism. You need to read scripture and study some logic.

          • I didn’t equate Christianity with Islam, I drew a parallel between Islam and your own rigid ideology… so entrenched you feel the need to demonize the leader of the visible church, and slander anyone who might have a different interpretation than your own–Catholic or otherwise.

            Prune your 2trees and let your light shine… you can do better, I am sure.

          • You skip into your comfort zone easily and follow your own misdirection. The Islam red herring is your distraction. The point about indifference, [indifferentism and] improving Christ – those you skip.

  49. I find this Cardinal’s commentary scandalous and appalling. There is an obviousness of political alliance here. These men are bringing the church down to a very low level. I completely support the four Cardinals and pray they have the courage to take the next step. I have no idea to what end. It seems most of the Cardinals and Bishops are nothing but yes men, careerists who long ago stopped having faith in Christ, if they ever did. What difference does it make if they are weak, cowardly, effeminate, frightened for themselves, sycophants, or ambitious, it makes no difference. The end result is the same, they will not defend Christ and they will not defend our faith, nor do they care about the souls.

  50. At best, the letter shows the author ignorant of the faith and what Burke described as being the third stage of a process. Clearly Burke says that he has taken this to Bergoglio privately and with others. The nature of charity is inverted as usual, indifference and enabling are paramount – which would describe the support for Bergoglio in the first place.

  51. Is Cardinal Cupich unable to exercise the elementary logic that would admit of a distinction between raising questions about what content within a papal document means, and questioning the legitimacy of said document? Or is his comment made in bad faith?

  52. I’m new to 1P5 and I’m sure this has been brought up before, but…
    All supporters of material communism are ipso facto excommunicated, via Pope Pius XII’s decree against communism.
    And since Francis had acknowledge to support communism, is he not ipso facto excommunicated?

  53. St. Athanasius who was the first Doctor of the Church and known as the Father of Orthodoxy and who was excommunicated by the Pope stated “The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops.”

  54. This poor Greek Bishop is totally lost. He uses the word “scandal” in the wrong way. Scandal means to lead someone into sin. That is precisely what the confusions of Amoris Laetitia does! The Four Cardinals – and the many other bishops, priests, and laity who think like John Paul the Great – want to lead people AWAY from sin.

    Bishop Papamanolis is clearly without a theological understanding.

  55. Pope Francis is guilty of heresy. His “blood of ecumenism” and “destruction of souls in hell” beliefs are clearly heretical, and he has never publicly disavowed them.

  56. So much blah blah and still no answer. Five yes or no was much easier and concise.

    It is beginning to sound like:

    4 Cardinals: Did Jesus say that it is a good thing to divorce your spouse and marry another?

    Bishop 1: We have to accompany them.

    4 Cardinals: Did Jesus say that it is a good thing to divorce your spouse and marry another?
    Bishop 2: You are being disloyal to the Pope.

    4 Cardinals: Did Jesus say that it is a good thing to divorce your spouse and marry another?
    Bishop 3: I concur with Bishop 1 and Bishop 2

    4 Cardinals: Did Jesus say that it is a good thing to divorce your spouse and marry another?
    Bishop 4: Repent of your disloyalty to the Pope you evil men.

  57. Dear Bishop Papamanolis,

    Two words: Saint Athanasius. Was he a “scandal” too for confronting every bishop and cardinal of the Church?

    You, Sir, are an abject fool. These four good Cardinals are merely responding [humbly] to the outrages that Pope Francis has publicly foisted upon the Church. That you fail to see that is indictment enough of your doctrinal and spiritual acumen. Go back to sleep, Your Eminence, or Your Excellency, or Your Holiness, or whatever else they’re calling you overweight white leftist “religious” blowhards these days. Bugger off. You are Wormtongue here, speaking soft sounding words that would be wise but are full of the serpent’s venom. Like Judas, you too will “go your way”.

    Your Humble and Obedient

  58. Amazing to see Rules for Radicals on display in the highest levels of the Catholic Church.
    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

  59. Myers was so superior in every way in the Archdiocese of Newark than Tobin sounds in this article. The Shepherds are supposed to be taking care of the flock and the Salvation of their Souls, not try to turn wolves into sheep. Another prophetic Paul VI prophecy, the smoke of Satan has entered into the Church. Talk about inclusiveness with strict boundaries… the Year of Mercy was a Trojan Horse to use the sacrament of penance to forgive illicit marriages in spite of the fact of what Jesus preached of Marriage (What God has joined together, let no man put asunder)…Pray harder for the Church B16, MUCH HARDER…

  60. Several readers have commented on the harsh tone of the letter from Greece. It is little difference to the routine vicious bashing Bergoglio regularly dishes out to any and all perceived enemies. Actually Cupich and Tobin bother me more. They can join Wuerl as Bergoglio’s lap dogs in America – the price of the red hat no doubt. But the message is ironic. The Francis fan club talk about decentralizing the Church, and the danger of clericalism. But the moment churchmen show some backbone the fans start reminding everyone that what the Pope says takes precedence because …. he is the Pope.

    It is not easy for a bishop to directly confront a Pope. Therefore it is crucial that lay Catholics point out and oppose every nutty snowflake in Bergoglio’s blizzard of the bizarre. (Defining proselytism as an “evil sin” is only the latest and it won’t be the last. And unless they take his airplane away you can count on continuing examples of extended examples of thoughtless verbiage from Bergoglio.) Bergoglio will not be with us forever. We must remind the bishops that there is strong support for a return to renewed orthodoxy rather than a crippled Church crafted by a Pope solidly supported by the bishops in Northern Europe that helped destroy the faith in the countries they represent.

  61. What is “newly minted” here is the preposterous notion that the 4 cardinals are in any way involved in “heresy.” Again the comparison with what is happening currently in American politics becomes unavoidable. Democrats and leftists consistently accuse their opponents of doing what, in fact, THEY are up to. The latest round of this nonsense involves Clinton’s allegation there was “voter fraud” in 3 states, and that this cost her the election. Just as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this is self-serving nonsense, so we can judge these hints and open allegations of heresy to be balderdash. In both the secular and ecclesiastical realms, the bogus charges reveal desperate attempts to rewrite history.

  62. Hoped for reaction:

    ‘Four Cardinals Under Siege Express Delight for Opportunity to Educate the Faithful’

    Frankiskos Papamanolis, o.f.m. cap must be seeking a red hat. He gave no arguments against the specifics of the four cardinals arguments. If I was one of the four Cardinals I would be most happy about the gathering storms.

  63. Can a pope change the teachings of Christ? The doubts that the four cardinals have expressed are about an apparent disregard for the words of Christ and long standing Catholic doctrine by the pope. These valid questions have been met not with answers, but with personal insults. The pope–who is directly responsible for upholding Catholic doctrine–has said nothing. There is something demonic going on here, and it is certainly not coming from the four cardinals.

    • A response from him by him only would, I suspect, serve only to further the muddling-thru the Church has done over various issues since Vatican 2. But I confess I have no faith in Müller as a man of courage.

      Having said that, I think the Pope will keep the lid on him as any legitimate response would place the Pope exactly where he is today; 1} staring at deposition or 2} the loss of his divorce and sodomy-supporting allies and the whole house of heretical cards he has surrounded himself with.

      Either way he loses. If he answers with heresy, he loses his Chair. If he answers with orthodoxy, he loses his entire rogue’s gallery of perverted friends…even those outside the Church like the Lesbo-Lutherans of Lund with whom he says he wants to celebrate full communion!

  64. It’s no surprise its a Greek Bishop. Their cultural attitude to blessing second unions is lax. It came about through the influence of the Greek Orthodox Church who had to buckle to pressure from a Byzantine Emperor and the laws of the Byzantine State. Rather the in more recent times the same sort of imposition of generic marriage when the government introduced civil marriage. Sin is very easy. The bishop says it isn’t easy to sin and then accused the four Cardinals of scandal and heresy. Francis has refused to answer the questions and that is the sin of schism and heresy! Francis answer YES or NO please..

  65. Well, folks, I for one am calling this scrap one of the blessings for which I have to express great thanks tomorrow. As a convert, I marvel at how you cradlers have suffered thru the many decades now of fancy dancing and prancing done by prelates in the Catholic Church. I actually wondered for a time if this was just going to blow over and be ignored like it seems so many other V2-related issues have been over the years.

    It may be that I am more combative than I need to be, but I am happy as a clam to see this fight as surely it is a fight the whole Church has been in need of since 1965.

    So Happy Thanksgiving Big Four! You have Christ to thank for giving you the idea and the motivation to put it into effect and we have you and our Blessed Lord to thank for firing the shot that hopefully will be heard round the world and the whole cosmos for that matter.

    May Christ purify His Church through your actions and words!

  66. JohnnyCuredents said:

    “What is “newly minted” here is the preposterous notion that the 4 cardinals are in any way involved in “heresy.” ”


    Weakland’s freak land
    Curran’s crew
    Mahoney’s baloney
    Now a Greek ballyhoo.

    “Take your kids
    To Lutherans, next door.”
    “Aren’t they heretics?”
    “We don’t say that anymore!”

    “Society priests
    Have a holy altruism.”
    “Oh, don’t go there
    Don’t you know they’re in schism?”

    “But they teach the whole Faith
    On their Altars, Christ adore.
    They’re not schismatics…
    We don’t say that anymore!”

  67. All of them (Cupich, Farrell, Tobin, now Papamanolis) appeal solely to the sheer authority of the Petrine ministry, offering no response at all to the enormous questions posed about (a) the reality of marriage, and therefore the reality of the union between Christ and the Church, (b) the reality of the Eucharist, (c) the objective content of human moral action, (d) the inability of conscience to determine or change the objective content of a moral act, (e) the veracity of the Gospel accounts in recording and passing on to us the words of Jesus, (f) the possibility of open conflict between the explicit teaching of two popes (in this case, Francis in AL and John Paul II in Familiaris consortio).

    These men imply by their answer an absolute papal infallibility, a grossly exaggerated ultramontanism, wholly disconnected from the clear limits articulated by Vatican I. If this were the actual Catholic position on papal authority, then Protestants would be right to denounce it. Even to speak in this way about a papal document is a scandal to Protestant Christians who may be open to returning to the Catholic faith; it encourages them to think of Catholics as “papists” in the worst sense. Vatican I states very explicitly that the ability of the pope to speak without error consists in faithfully handing on the Deposit of Faith, and that a pope has no authority to change the Deposit, which is apostolic. The Deposit of Faith is not within a pope’s power to change; it stems directly from the firsthand witness of men and women who saw the Lord and heard him speak, who saw him again after he rose.

    These men who have now, finally, gained the Petrine ministry they coveted for so many long years, are the same who have been encouraging open dissent to Paul VI’s encyclical letter Humanae vitae for almost 50 years. Again, these same spoke often in the 80s and 90s of “faithful dissent,” in order to justify the fact that they publicly challenged virtually everything that St. John Paul II wrote (e.g., Evangelium vitae, Veritatis splendor, Ordinatio sacerdotalis). They had no qualms about calling into question (and not in private letters to the pope, but in open discussion with secular media) the magisterial authority of the official writings of popes from just a few decades ago. Yet, now that they hold all the cards in terms of ecclesiastical authority, when bishops/cardinals ask for clarity on extremely important things from the current Pope, this is met with accusations of heresy and apostasy.

    The irony of it is so very bitter, because it is poison.

    These men must be opposed, by every peaceful means available to us. Those who are labelled “traditionalists” or who label themselves “traditional Catholics” (which seems to be most people who comment on this site) need to join with those who are not “traditionalist” (e.g., myself — although I often go to Mass in the 1962 Latin form, I also go to Mass in the vernacular form, and I would defend against anyone the orthodoxy of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict, often maligned in the comment box here as ‘Modernists’). Satan intends to divide “traditionalists” from those who recognize V2 as a legitimate albeit imperfect Council, and who celebrate John Paul II as a great Pope who is by no means a Modernist. The adversary wants opposition to the new regime to be scattered and haphazard. We must speak together in response to this poison.

  68. The failure to answer and/or ignore the 5 questions while attacking the four cardinals asking the questions, speaks volumes about the duplicity and complicity of those promoting and protecting blatant heresy I/N/O defending Pope Francis. Since his trip to Lund, Sweden PF has earned the moniker of the “First Protestant Pope”. Now, his pertinacity in maintaining, defending and ignoring his blatant heresy in AL reveals his answer to the question “Whom do you please, God or Man?”. His comments, actions and writings clearly reveal the answer.

  69. No Pope, even backed by two synods has the magisterial authority to contradict any previous teaching issued by the Church’s Magisterium, by previous Pope or by a doctrinal council.
    However, this is exactly what Francis did in his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia regarding the communion to the divorced remarried couples that contradicts St John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation “Familiaris Consortio”.

  70. What an Alinskyite?! I am not sure he is following the script of ‘Rules for Radicals’ or if it just comes naturally to him, but this is a devious way of trying to isolate and destroy the “opposition!” (the FEARLESS FOUR!)

  71. The four dubia Cardinals? I call them the FEARLESS FOUR!!!!!! Go, men!! Go!! God be with you.
    The new Athanasius (x4)!!!


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...