Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Politics Trumps Theology in Filial Correction Response

What if a man, a man of eminence and of great and well-credentialed education, a man of authority, a priest, even, a man who has the ear of the Pope, told you that sometimes 2 + 2 = 5? Would this man by virtue of his lofty position be correct?

What if a small child, a wretch with no virtue of schooling, a unkempt waif, told the great man, “No, sir. 2 + 2 always equals 4, even for God, who cannot change Truth”?

Hold on! What’s this untutored child doing? Doesn’t she realize her error? She has no authority to offer a correction! Why should we listen to a kid?

Here comes Massimo Faggioli, a professor at Villanova University’s Department of Theology and Religious Studies, to help us. He says the child represents a “tiny, extreme fringe of the opposition to” to our great man. The child “is clearly not a cardinal or bishop with formal standing in the Catholic Church.”

David Gibson, who is director of Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture, agrees. He says the child’s attempt at a correction is “akin to an online petition”. He also says, “It’s a great headline anytime a priest is accused of error. But these kids are really, kind of, the usual suspects of really far right types who have been upset with not only this priest, but other priests in recent years.”

Even the New York Times—the New York Times!—reminds us the child is not a cardinal. And therefore her criticism is of no consequence.

We can only conclude that because our child is not an authority, and has no right to offer a correction, she is wrong. 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. It sometimes, as the priest Antonio Spadaro (for that is his name) said, can be 5, or 3, or any number he likes. The actual figure doesn’t count as long as, presumably, the solution is merciful.

Right?

If that argument makes sense to you, as it does to folks like Faggioli and Gibson and the others who are carping from the sidelines about qualifications of those who offered the Filial Correction, then you have succumbed to the idea that the Church is really about politics. That all battles are power plays, in which the side with the superior numbers or shiftier political abilities will, and should, win.

The quotes above are real, changed only slightly to shift the emphasis from the accusations of heresy for some of Pope Francis’s statements, to our imaginary child. Faggioli and Gibson are far from alone. The Twitter spokesperson for Hope & Life Press scolded the Filial Correction signers, “You have zero authority to issue any correction whatsoever.”

Well known commentator Austen Ivereigh could also only see the political angle. He wrote “Big tactical error to include Fellay as only bishop. Signatories now clearly identified with schismatic anti-Vatican II movement.” This is spiritually akin to saying, “Big tactical error for that child not to have included a tenured math professor.”

It is also factually wrong since the Society of Saint Pius X headed by Bishop Fellay is not in schism, as acknowledged even by Pope Francis, who validated confessions given to its priests during the “Year of Mercy”. Ivereigh surely knows this, but chose to cast his “schism” aspersion anyway, because in politics as in war, all is fair.

Ivereigh’s worst error was to say numbers matter: “‘Theologians’ misnomer in most cases; 62 is a tiny number, given strength of feeling over #AmorisLaetitia; most are well-known trad critics.” Again, this is like saying, “The child was alone, so we can dismiss her criticism.” Or it’s like saying, “Only trad mathematicians hold to the old formulas.”

If Twitter were available circa 350 AD, Ivereigh might have tweeted, “Athanasius is only one man with almost no support. Dismiss him. Let’s hope rumors of Pope Liberius excommunicating him come true.”

Exclusively political reactions to the Filial Correction belie another attitude. It is as if these naysayers do not believe seriously, or at all, in the supernatural elements of the Catholic faith. The authors of the correction certainly do.

If the naysayers thought the supernatural element the most important, and not politics, there would have been immediate and lively discussion of the seven points of the Correction. Are they really heresies? All of them? Why? Why not? “Let’s dig into this most important matter,” they would have said. “The salvation of souls is paramount, and heresy cannot be countenanced. Here is where we agree, and here where we disagree on the theological points.”

Only after we figure out, really investigate, and agree on each the points are the motives of the writers and signers of the Correction up for grabs. To focus on personalities first is an inversion—and very telling.

103 thoughts on “Politics Trumps Theology in Filial Correction Response”

  1. When St Athanasius went after the Arians at the Council of Nicea, he was a lowly deacon in the service of his bishop Alexander. Seems like the Church was much more egalitarian in the good ole days., and what a man believed and said was more important than his status. Long gone are the times when it is the Truth that matters.

    Reply
    • Egalitarianism!! Of COURSE!!

      HAHAHA!!!

      Good catch, Deacon!

      Because…after all…”inequality is the root of all evil”!! How could the Pope miss THAT?????

      {Fade to the flapping of the Red Flag accompanied by a rising crescendo of the Internationale…}

      Reply
      • Strange how they think “equality” only applies to those who drink their own brand of heretical koolaid, isn’t it? A bit like the new “mercy”, the new “parrhesia” and the new “dialogue”. Modernists are the same old scheisters that they always have been.

        Reply
          • I consider the Pope a Traditionalist Sedevacantist.

            Using the political authority of the Traditional hierarchy to unseat the Papacy.

          • God will, for sure.
            With this, the 266th one, our Lord will probably teach us the lesson about our, in the last few decades, very wrongly POV of those disciples who are, who should and must be; the first among the same, the servants of the servants, the keepers of the true Catholic Faith, the shepherds of the flock which Jesus entrusted to him…
            It is our Lord and His Church. Not the pope and his Church!
            So the popes must know their place, their duties and especially their limitations. While we know our God is almighty, He is above all, He is the Creator of all visible and invisible, He is Savior, He is Redeemer, He is God. God is GOD. Pope is pope.
            Hereafter we must set a period.

    • . . . And, Arius was only a lowly Deacon when he chose to oppose the teaching of his own Bishop, St. Alexander. So, what’s your point? That you are worthy to oppose even the Vicar of Christ if you so choose?

      Athanasius was a saint not because, he a Deacon, opposed Bishops and Patriarchs, rather because he was a servant of the Truth.

      Reply
          • As you will note from the original post, the target of its criticism was not the Pope but rather the arguments of those who had rushed in to criticize the “Correction”. Rather than attempting to engage with any of the substance of the document, they had instead gone straight for the signers of it in the attempt to undermine their right to raise the issues on the basis of their alleged lack of qualifications and status. The truth or falsity of what had been written did not even enter into their response.

            My point was that if such rationale and poverty in argument had prevailed in the 4th century, Athanasius would have been kicked out of the Council of Nicea for his lack of status and the Church would have turned Arian. In other words “politics” would have trumped theology and truth, just as the original piece suggested has happened in this case.

          • I would add that hopefully the irony is not lost on you that the very ones who have launched the ad hominem attacks are those who pride themselves on their “inclusivity”, “accompaniment”, “openness” and “broadmindedness.”

          • Deacon you were crystal clear. If someone is unable to understand your statement at first glance, it goes to show what is happening among those who are currently criticizing the correction, how myopic, misguided and brainwashed they are, and happy to be.

          • O. K., I get you . . . and, of course, you are right. The authors of the Correctio indeed have the right to raise their concerns with the Church’s Pastors. This is stated outright in CIC #212/3.

            I do think they went a little overboard by bringing in the claim of heresy. The Code makes clear that no Christian has the right to harm illegitimately the good reputation of another (can. 220). And, the Catechism makes clear:

            2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

            Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.[citing St. Ignatius Loyola]

            We have suffered over the past 50 years with a culture of dissent amongst Theologians and (even — God forgive) some Bishops. Petitions, joint statements, study committees, protests, etc. have been lodged by dissenters, usually with the Holy See as the foil for the dissenters’ complaints.

            Therefore, in the case of Pope Francis I, I would think that those who witnessed and suffered through the wreckage of such upheaval would have learned something . . . at least, to not imitate the arrogant, judgmental attitudes of the dissenters. There should be a willful CAUTION at going against the Pope.

            Some or many of Pope Francis I’s statements and teachings may need to be brought — even kicking and screaming — into the ambit of Orthodoxy. But, there are ways to do that without calling him a heretic.

            The Saints — especially, those who dealt with “irregular” Popes — should be our example of how to act — NOT excuses for how we might want to act (namely, arrogantly, judgmentally).

          • I agree with you about the need to be careful about using proper distinctions. They did make it clear that they were not attempting to allege a canonical crime of heresy, but rather than using the term “propagating heresy” it would have probably been more accurate to say “promoting heretical propositions” and thus identify the defect with the ideas moreso than the man. After all it is possible to promote heretical propositions simply by failing to teach the fullness of the truth or the many ways in which we can co-operate in the sin of another.

            As far as CCC 2478 is concerned he has been asked formally on numerous occasions to explain how he understands the contested passages and he has point blank refused to engage in “dialogue”. He could clear up the matter in the blink of an eye if he wanted to. Ignoring dubia submitted by his own Cardinals is unprecedented. In the light of his refusing to engage, and with confusion and heretical interpretations of AL spreading all around the world, it is only right that there should have been a correction attempted at this stage.

            Those who made this correction should not have been the ones to do it. It should never have gone this far. If the Cardinals and bishops were up to the job, it would have been dealt with long ago, but so many of them are complicit and up to their necks in modernism that the episcopate is hopelessly divided – it isn’t functioning as it should. Collegial responsibility for the governance of the Church has broken down. It isn’t just the Pope who is the problem, he is in the pockets of a very powerful group of bishops who are determined to remake the Church in their own image which is not the image of Christ.

            In this failure of the shepherds to shepherd it is only right for somebody to step into the breach – it may be what is needed for the episcopate to rediscover their back bone and start teaching the orthodox faith again. So I certainly will not criticize the signers of this correction at this juncture. But for you to imply that they are acting arrogantly and judgmentally, all I would ask is who are you to judge?

          • I would offer my humble opinion that it might have been more fruitful for the signers of the Correctio to have pressured Card. Burke et al. to actually follow through on their gesture.

            First, to have gotten a few more Bishops on board . . . but to have followed through nonetheless.

            On an unrelated point (but, noted elsewhere), I think the Pope’s demeanor of obviously ignoring people with whom he apparently disagrees is indefensible. It only makes the overall situation worse and more prone to confrontation.

  2. As I’ve said on Twitter, the only response so far by the “defend the Pope at all costs” crowd has been to belittle and launch ad hominems at the signatories, with a touch of “see, they’re all crazy rad trads” thrown in for good measure. Have any of them launched an actual theological defense of AL against the correction? Not that I’ve seen.

    It’s interesting how papolatry works; where were these people during the reigns of JPII and Benedict, for example? Now, all of a sudden the pope is not to be questioned when it’s someone they like on the throne.

    Reply
    • “where were these people during the reigns of JPII and Benedict, for example?”

      The same place they are now: anywhere but Holy Mass on a Sunday (or Saturday evening) and looking for validation for their perverted lifestyles and/or views from all sources, especially sources of moral authority.

      Reply
      • Be careful of your use of the word “reign”. A Pope is not a king. The appropriate word is “service”, or, technically, “pontificate”.

        Reply
        • Well, I am open to learning and correction but I don’t think the word is inappropriate. One, once elected, a pope is the head of a sovereign state for life. Two, the pope does have absolute authority to promulgate teachings, even against the will of the college of cardinals.

          Reply
          • I agree Bergoglii is a leftist in politics and usually a leftist in politics carries his leanings into his religion, but technically ne’er the two shall meet, because Christ’s message is not of this world. One cannot be a leftist (aka liberal) and Catholic, and that is the gist of most Catholics’ problem with Bergoglio.

      • How sound this to your hears?
        “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.” (Letter to Pope Gregory XI, 1376.) St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380), Doctor of the Church
        And,… we might hardly doubt that he was a heretic.

        Reply
        • . . . and, a comment like this one, namely, the misuse of a quote from a saint, just goes to show the level of contempt — even hatred — that some people have for Pope Francis.

          Reply
          • Is that all what you have mister agent? Your ad hominem game? You should better use your intellect for another things which are much better than wrongly accusing someone for hatred. In those words of Saint Catherine of Sienna has none of hatred. But regret and fraternal warning to the one who deserves it.

          • And your point is? The entire thrust of the argument being made is that the Truth is the Truth, no matter who says it, and that we DON’T have to be a St. Catherine of Siena to point it out. 🙂

          • She was in any case not a saint until after her death so she did not correct the pope as Saint Catherine of Sienna but as Catherine who lives in Sienna! Who did she think she was? A layperson correcting the pope!

          • You follow the same error reported in this article. If you cannot recognize the heresy you are blessed no to truth.

          • Why do you keep vasilating between opinions? Since when does someone have to be a saint before correcting a pope? What matters here is that someo who claims to be the pope is blatantly propagating and enforcing heresy and instead of those who assert themselves as Catholics to join hands and denounce him, they are busy arguing about their status and worthiness to give a correction. Haven’t we learnt enough from all that has been happening since March 2013?

          • If someone doesn’t have to be a saint, then, let’s stop trying to drag them onto whatever side of a argument we happen to be.

            “Vacillating,” by the way . . . and, I don’t think you’re even using it correctly.

          • Matthew, are you implying one needs to be a lofty saint like Catherine of Sienna to have a voice in the Church? While Catherine and the others are (now) members of the Church Triumphant, All Catholics posting here are members of the Church Militant, and many no doubt are saintly and may one day be canonized. In any case, canonization usually follows a life in communion with God and in defense of His Church. We defend God’s Church in today’s world, much like the world of Catherine, at our bodily peril but spiritual benefit.

      • Regardless of whether St. Catherine was accusing the Pope of heresy or not, she was still confronting the Pope, and as far as we know she was not told by the Vatican to keep her mouth shut because she has not “standing” to do so. As someone else rightly pointed out, Vatican II claimed to have empowered the laity. In what way? To dissent? Seems like the CATHOLIC laity had more of a voice prior to that “ecumenical” Council.

        Reply
  3. I’m afraid you’re right. This seems to say what is important to those who’ve pooh-poohed the Correction is essentially saying, no, of course the Emperor has clothes on. Silly ninny, everyone else sees them! Bad analogy, I know. It reminds me why I need to pray more, rather than less, for the holy Father, and those around him. I laughed at the comment from Mr. Gibson, as I signed Mr. Skojec’s petition yesterday.

    Reply
  4. I thought it comical that the Chiacgo Tribune parroted the exact same New York Times article that was released by the AP (although, unfortunately I didn’t see the original authors name), with the misspelled “dubia” (dubbia) and all.
    It was almost as if there was a concerted effort in getting that drivel out.

    Reply
    • The author was Nicole Winfield, the AP’s Vatican correspondent.

      And to your point about the misspelling, it says a lot about the state of American journalism when editors of all the major papers who used the story couldn’t be bothered to proofread it for the “dubbia” spelling. It displays a hivemind mentality, where they all just share stories unquestioningly rather than doing their own reports.

      Reply
      • As somebody who has worked in journalism, I can also tell you that newspapers and wire services are cutting back to extreme lengths. Copy editors are one of the first things to go, and go in spades. I’ve seen spelling, grammatical and factual errors that not even first-year journalism students would make. (Then again, give the state of teaching in the United States, the grammatical errors appear to be par for the course.)

        Reply
  5. It was a “lowly” Archangel who rose against the “lofty” Lucifer, this angel of light, and with his cry “who is like God?” Cast out the proud Satan and his minions into hell.
    You don’t need to be a cardinal or a bishoo to see that an error is an error, a heresy is a heresy, and to call it for what it is.

    Reply
  6. Appeals to majoritarianism, and casting AL critics as a tiny minority as if an empirical survey has been conducted, is deeply strange. Especially since the bishops at Manipulated Synod 2014 VOTED TO REJECT AND EXCLUDE all controversial points from the Synod’s final report, a decision summarily ignored by a Pope bent on reaching his preferred outcome under the cover of a fraudulent collegiality. Truth is not a numbers game, but let us never forget that AL advocates LOST the numbers game exactly where it was supposed to have counted.

    Reply
    • It’s not deeply strange, MJD. It’s the logical result of a Church leadership that centuries ago — long before the Enlightenment, the Reformation or the Great Schism — sacrificed its Petrine patrimony on the altar of power, wealth, secular prestige, political influence, careerism and institutional arrogance.

      Reply
  7. All those signing the dubia were cardinals, Princes of the Church. Therefore, since 100% of the signatories were cardinals, the dubia deserves to be answered.

    Reply
  8. Someone at One Peter Five has an awesome sense of humor. Surely our Adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell would expertly (and authoritatively) add 2 + 2 and come up with the correct answer of 4. If nothing else, the author of this article can hardly be called an “unkempt waif”. Well done, Professor, well done.

    William M. Briggs, Author at OnePeterFive
    onepeterfive.com
    William
    M. Briggs is a self-described vagabond statistician and Adjunct
    Professor of Statistics at Cornell. Previously a Professor at the
    Cornell Medical School, a …

    Reply
  9. It really is as simple as 2 +2 = 4. This is not theological “rocket science”. It does not take a Cardinal to confirm that public adulterers cannot receive Christ in Holy Communion. It would be nice if a Cardinal could confirm that. But still, not required. Even us lowly “broom pushers” know that.

    Reply
  10. Within the 25 pages there is proof that signatories DO have the authority and an obligation to make this correction. Of course, they are all more intellectual than Jorge Bergoglio, to whose mind mutually exclusive propositions are not in conflict. A stance like this can not be considered valid even in kindergarten.

    Jorge Bergoglio is deliberately anti-intellectual and very critical of reason and logic.
    And yet Christianity is not emotionalism and New Age. It is not critical theory and a systemic destruction of all order. It is not messy. It is based on LOGOS.

    Reply
  11. Ya gotta laugh!

    OK, what’s the No.1 Vatican II cliche which y’all are sick of hearing for the past 50 years? Here’s mine; “Vatican II was all about empowerment of the laity!” Great……if we’ve heard it once we’ve heard it a thousand times. So when a group composed predominantly of lay people gets together and issues a correction to the Pope, what happens? The cogniscenti scream……”Shut uupp!!! Y’all aint got no standing!!” So much for the “spirit of Vatican II”, huh?

    Honestly, these people just make it up as they go along. I guess they thought “empowerment of the laity” was restricted to ageing hippies organizing antiwar protests through the parish Justice and Peace committee, hordes of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers swarming the sanctuary and the parish Liturgy Committee draping the Church in felt banners and balloons.

    Once again, it will be the laity which saves the Church and it will absolutely kill the heretics and modernists to see it happen.

    Reply
    • This is the true “Spirit of Vatican II”; the “priesthood of the laity” joining forces when duty calls. This Papal Correction even trumps the true ecumenism
      displayed in joining forces with Conservative Protestants in the USA over civil matters.

      Reply
    • Correction: “Vatican II was all about the empowerment of the apostate laity!” As such, a shadow of heresy has always been cast upon Vatican II.

      Reply
    • Yes, this is one of the great ironies, that the laity is the cavalry to Calvary.

      Or not so ironic when you realize these “Spirit of Vatican II” guys were really just Vatican I Catholics who were heretical. They — formed in the Vatican I Church — fully rejected its major teachings but also fully expected the “sheeple” to follow their lead and DO AS THEY WERE TOLD. (That discipline was both the strength and the weakness of the Vat I Church.) The two biggest Church secrets since the ’60s is that half of American (and more than that of European?) Catholics simply left the Church in the 20 years from 1964 to 1984, and a good portion of the rest silently (or à la the SSPX, etc., not so silently) rejected the heresiarchs’ false teachings while yet staying in the Church and nursing to wider usage the TLM and traditional pieties.

      Being the rank hypocrites that they are, the heresiarchs bedeviling us today (no pun intended there) STILL don’t get the irony of this. I don’t think they’re capable of such simple, clear, thinking. Or to put it another way, they’re humorless.

      Raghn Corvinus

      Reply
    • “Empowerment of the laity” is nothing but the Catholic (or pseudo-Catholic) equivalent of “Workers of the World, Unite!” It’s nothing but a ruse to lure innocent people into supporting a corrupt, bureaucratic, corporatist system whose leaders care only about their own power and comfort.
      Well, those “leaders” are going to get a big surprise, and far sooner than they ever anticipated!

      Reply
  12. Pure Will trumps Faith and Reason in this papacy.
    Now where else do we see this mindset?
    In the capricious worldview of islam, Luther and in secular humanist thinking where 2+2 = anything you wish.
    Most definitely not Catholic.

    Reply
      • You can see for yourself here, Joe:

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/09/michael-liccione-writes-filial-correction.html

        And the comments are just pathetic. A tragically sad example of papalotry, with countless comments the likes of “Who are YOU to question the Pope? What’s your authority?” et cetera. To read them causes a man to believe these people genuinely believe Catholicism is whatever the current pope says it is, not the accumulated teaching of 2,000 years.

        But, in their defense, Shea and his ilk have conditioned them this way for decades now. So it’s no wonder the “conservatives” are sputtering incoherently.

        In a dose of irony, however, the revamped Catholic Answers Forums are now much less heavily moderated, resulting in a thread on this very issue that actually has posters expressing (horror of horrors!) opposition to this pope and have not been instantaneously banned. It’s been darkly entertaining to go there and read the longtime posters accuse concerned Catholics of “bashing the pope” and wondering why said opposition is still allowed to post. Maybe there is some hope after all.

        Reply
        • I skimmed Shea’s article. Once Shea dies, his next-of-kin should bury him in Antarctica. He is so full of excrement that he could single-handedly turn that continent into the breadbasket of the world — even at sub-freezing temperatures!

          Reply
  13. Liberals are not stupid even though they appear to be stupid. They just have no love for the truth. They ask, “Is this cool?” or “Does this make me feel good?” not “Is this true?” Coolness and trendiness are more important than the truth.

    Reply
  14. They would have you believe the Communion of Saints is composed of, and limited to, those who have “…formal standing in the Catholic Church.” Does a Baptismal Certificate count? Or only alphabet soup behind your moniker?
    This might actually be a step forward for this crew!
    The depth and breath of the disorientation is boundless.

    Reply
    • Indeed. The first sentence suggest on delusion caused by jansenists, but these ones are rather a mix of all of them, the total disorientation of all kind delusions and their inventors, lutherism, calvinism, jansenism, budism, communism, esoterism, islamism, libearlism, democratism, capitalism, socialism, humanism, … everythingism,… except Catholicism.

      Reply
  15. I chuckled at the analogy. One of the first things I thought of when reading the Correction that since the hierarchy doesn’t seem to have the backbone to come alongside the Dubia cardinals, it rests on the laity to rise up and declare The Emperor Has No Clothes!

    Reply
  16. Our Lady of Aikita Japan warned. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The Church and altars will be vandalized. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. https://www.olrl.org/prophecy/akita.shtml

    Reply
  17. The Blessed Mother has always told us that is her little children who suffer in humility, docility, contemplation, prayer, silence and holiness who will defeat the pride and the arrogant who are overtaking the church. They are her cohort. There can be no greater ppwer or strength than to imitate the Blessed Mother’s humility. This was a refreshing article full of thoughtful insights.

    Reply
  18. Do we need further proof that this Correction has pinched some toes and singed some asses in Vatican City? When the lefties (and that IS what they really are) roll out the rhetorical phosgene and mustard gas, you know their primary defense lines are crumbling, that their riflemen are abandoning their trenches.

    Reply
    • Pope Pius IX said there is no such thing as a “liberal” (or leftist ) Catholic. It seems to me we need to stop using political terms for Church matters. Let’s call a spade a spade and refer to apostates as just that.

      Reply
      • Notice I didn’t say “leftist Catholics.” I said “lefties.” That’s completely reasonable when one knows their political leanings. Now, they may also be apostates or heretics when it comes to ecclesiastic matters. But when I hear Jorge Bergoglio’s political suggestions, his speeches to workers or his words about Europe’s Muslim “refugees,” I hear the voice of a leftist, one who would be very comfortable in the French Socialist party or the US Democrat Party.

        Reply
  19. “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

    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.”

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

    Reply
  20. Diana Hayes, “theologian” at Georgetown, one time said to me, when I asked her in the Q&A after a lecture, how she could support the dissidence and heresy of Call To Action as one of their touring speakers, said:

    DO YOU HAVE THE MANDATUM?!?!

    Reply
    • Well, do you? Do I? Do any of us nobodies? But it doesn’t change the fact: the Emperor has no clothes. The learned men and women may demean and derogate that unkempt waif of a child who dares to speak the obvious truth, but the Emperor still has no clothes. And the Emperor is casting aside and retaliating against anyone who tries to cover his nakedness.

      Reply
    • Wow, talk about arrogance and a sense of entitlement on the part of one academic! No wonder the American universities are such a mess!

      Reply
  21. Truth remains its own authority. When that truth is a revealed one it’s authority presents it to us as gift – one we dare not spurn or return.

    Or worse, take the truth but re-present it ourselves as our own gift from ourselves. In short, repackage the great truth there is only one Gift & Giver giving the gift of himself, our Savior who is both gift and giver (priest & victim).

    Heresy is like that, repackaging ourselves for ourselves: including unpacking any truth outside ourselves (natural or revealed) to be ‘re-presented to ourselves for ourselves.

    In brief, we never come across a gift; we would not know how to receive one.

    Heresy is a mock gift we give ourselves so we can close (fist up) our hand from receiving the true one.

    Reply
  22. It occurs to me that the people who are awakened to the crisis happening in the Catholic Church are a small minority of folks. The vast majority of the Catholics whom I know are fast asleep and have no idea whatsoever that a storm is ready to unleash all its fury. I do not expect my Catholic friends to believe Francis could speak or advocate heresy. They like Francis. They think he is the best thing that has ever happened to the Catholic Church. They agree with what he says; if he says something “unorthodox” they are quick to defend him on the basis that what he says is being twisted and misinterpreted by malcontents and/or people with an agenda.

    If (and/or when) a correction comes from the two remaining Cardinals, I expect my Catholic friends to be surprised and confused and then I expect them to respond in anger. I believe their anger won’t be directed at Francis; instead, I believe their anger will be directed at the minority voices who dared to speak out against the “people’s pope”. My Catholic friends are either not well catechized or they are wholeheartedly on board with Francis’ vision for the future of the Church. Then add to that the local priest who thinks Francis walks on water and says as much from the pulpit. I believe there will be a schism and I believe it will be a remnant who remain faithful to Christ and to his Church.

    Reply
  23. A correction from a small group of traditionalist / conservative academics will not work. It is too easy to ignore and to portray as coming from an insignificant cadre of right wingers. There are only two forms of correction that will have the necessary impact. A correction from a significant number of cardinals (say 25, at least) or bishops (say 200, at least) might work. But, it is clear now that such a correction is never going to happen. So we are really only left with one option: it must come from Pope Emeritus Benedict. He must be careful to say that he writes not as Peter but as a humble bishop, but he must firmly and clearly say that what Pope Francis has tried to do is impossible.

    Reply
  24. Interesting, the Establishment attacks the people who signed it, not the actual content of the Correctio. Mmm – is that because it contains the hard truth?! The “Pope of Dialogue” seems only to want dialogue with his own, and not with those who can legitimately refute the mush. Perhaps, also, he would not be able to respond to defend himself, since he is clearly no theologian himself.

    Also of note is that the Correctio points out the Modernist thinking behind Francis and also his unnatural praise of Martin Luther.

    Reply
  25. I am remembering a scene from the tv miniseries, “Jesus of Nazareth”. John explains that one of the things he has learned is that 2+2 = 4, “most times”. I can only attribute that statement to the influence of the “spirit of Vatican II”. It seems many who came to be in the Church hierarchy today took that line seriously, not realizing or caring that it was false.

    Reply
  26. The last paragraph is exactly what’s troubling me about this whole situation – The Pope and Vatican have not addressed the actual questions asked. Its incomprehensible that legitimate questions, seeking only clarity on an authoritative statement, have not been given the least amount of recognition. Instead, like American politics, the entire focus has been on the messenger not the message. We are told from day 1 of our Catholic education to submit to The Church on all matters of faith – well, Rome, we have some questions that need answering so that we can be sure we are following what you intended.

    Reply
  27. The figures of the child and the simple mathematical equation are fascinating for these reasons.
    1, It was a child who told the adoring crowd in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes” that the emperor was naked.
    2. Herrmann Goering once said that if Adolf Hitler told him that 2+2=5, he would believe Der Fuerher.
    One final point:
    We should start considering the possibility that Pope Francis is the False Prophet of Revelation. A lot of Catholics — and not necessarily Traditionalist, either — already have. Francis already has shown his sympathy with the neo-Marxist, secularist paradigm embraced by the elite of the world. He will take a lot of people down with him — such as the hierarchs who long ago sacrificed their faith on the altar of their career ambitions, and the Apologetics-Industrial Complex (and those it influences), which sacrificed its integrity on the altar of neo-Ultramontanism.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...