Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Silence Gives Consent: Four Cardinals Challenge Francis

The maxim is “Qui tacet consentire videtur”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

-St. Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons

It is not without a sense of irony that I have chosen to quote from this famous scene in the excellent 1966 film about St. Thomas More — a saint who died a cruel death to preserve the divinely instituted teaching on marriage against the selfish machinations of his sovereign, King Henry VIII. In it, Thomas is depicted as morally upright man with a fierce intellect; direct when needed, but also cunning. When he is placed on trial for not supporting the usurpatious claims of his king against the authority of Rome, he tells the court — still hoping to avoid an open confrontation with Henry — that the law required his silence not be construed as opposition, but consent.

Ultimately, as we all know, St. Thomas was forced to withhold his blessing upon Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn against the king’s insistence; it was a protest that would send him to his martyrdom. As he came before the executioner’s block, he famously stated — both in film and in historical fact — “I die the King’s good servant, and God’s first.”

This morning in Rome, it was revealed that four Catholic cardinals — Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner — had written a letter to Pope Francis on September 19th, 2016 — just ten days after the emergence of Francis’ own letter affirming the sacrilegious interpretation of Amoris Laetitia by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region. In the letter (the full text of which is available here), the four cardinals state the reason for their inquiry:

The sending of the letter to His Holiness Pope Francis by four cardinals derives from a deep pastoral concern.

We have noted a grave disorientation and great confusion of many faithful regarding extremely important matters for the life of the Church. We have noted that even within the episcopal college there are contrasting interpretations of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.

The great Tradition of the Church teaches us that the way out of situations like this is recourse to the Holy Father, asking the Apostolic See to resolve those doubts, which are the cause of disorientation and confusion.

Ours is, therefore, an act of justice and charity.

Of justice: With our initiative, we profess that the Petrine ministry is the ministry of unity, and that to Peter, to the Pope, belongs the service of confirming in the faith.

Of charity: We want to help the Pope to prevent divisions and conflicts in the Church, asking him to dispel all ambiguity.

We have also carried out a specific duty. According to the Code of Canon Law (349) the cardinals, even taken individually, are entrusted with the task of helping the Pope to care for the universal Church.

They submitted five questions in the form of “dubia — the formal method by which theologians and prelates can seek clarifications on matters of Church teaching from Rome. These dubia were written in such a way that they can be answered simply with a “yes” or “no.” The five dubia are as follows:

  1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

  2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

  3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

  4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

  5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

Nearly two months later, they have received no answer. They write:

The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection and the discussion, calmly and with respect.

And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.

We hope that no one will choose to interpret the matter according to a “progressive/conservative” paradigm. That would be completely off the mark. We are deeply concerned about the true good of souls, the supreme law of the Church, and not about promoting any form of politics in the Church.

Their stated interpretation of the Holy Father’s failure to respond appears deeply incongruous with the urgency of their request. If they truly believe that a “grave disorientation and great confusion grave of many faithful” has resulted from Amoris Laetitia, they cannot content themselves with being ignored. It is, after all, only necessary for them to ask whether the Church is embracing doctrinal error in her recent teaching because it appears to be so.

And yet, the cleverness of this work lies in what it accomplishes, not in the deferential diplomacy with which it was written. These cardinals have effectively pushed Pope Francis into a corner; if he affirms the plain interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, it is heresy; if he denies it, then he undoes the sacrilegious work of the Synods and the exhortation which is even now being imposed in dioceses around the world. He has been forced to admit that he is a heretic, or to combat the heresy he has invited into the Mystical Body of Christ. To fail to respond in either way is to implicitly endorse heresy. After all, “The maxim of the law is ‘Silence gives consent’.”

His failure to respond in private speaks volumes. And so it has become necessary for the cardinals to raise the issue in public. As Sandro Magister observed:

[O]ne thinks right away of Matthew 18:16-17: “If your brother will not listen to you, take with you two or three witnesses. If then he will not listen even to them, tell it to the assembly.”

This is not the first time Francis has chosen to show his hand by refusing to offer clarity where the only alternative is heresy.

We saw this in his refusal to respond to the 19 theological censures against Amoris Laetitia authored by 45 theologians and Catholic scholars around the world.

We saw it when he chose to ignore the Filial Appeal signed by over 800,000 Catholics, asking him to uphold Church teaching on marriage and the family.

And if what has been reported to us is true, we know how angry such efforts make him. How he is alleged to have lashed out at the 13 cardinals who confronted him with yet another letter before the second synod — and how he scolded them in public when the synod was done.

It is of vital importance that these four cardinals, having released this document to the public, do not back down. Three of the four are already retired; Cardinal Burke is the lone exception, and he already lives in political exile for his efforts.

St. Thomas More allowed his life to be taken rather than accept a distortion of the Church’s teaching on marriage and the papal authority bound by God to uphold it. No consequence should deter these prelates — or any others — from standing their ground. The faithful are desperate for leadership from their shepherds. Career implications are a pittance in comparison to an executioner’s axe.

We have a pope who has given every indication that he welcomes and embraces material heresy; it is long past time that he be tested for the obduracy of his adherence to it.

The cardinal authors of the letter take pains to make their allegiance clear:

We hope that no one will judge us unjustly, as adversaries of the Holy Father and people devoid of mercy. What we have done and are doing derives from the deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope, and from an impassioned concern for the good of the faithful.

Indeed. We are loyal papists all, and we ask the man currently occupying the throne of St. Peter to show similar docility to the majesty of his august office.

After all, we are the pope’s good servants, but God’s first.

209 thoughts on “Silence Gives Consent: Four Cardinals Challenge Francis”

  1. The only way to beat a bully is to stand up to him and never back down.
    So that evil viper will continue to say nothing, and more and more retired or demoted Cardinals and Bishops (think those in the CDW recently dismissed) will gain courage and come out of the woodwork and challenge him on his wicked heresies. Finally they will be joined by those who still hold dicasterial positions and Bergoglio will be exposed to the world as the wolf he truly is.

    • Bullies are always cowards – particularly the rainbow variety. Keeping the pressure up in the correct manner should pave the way for a new conclave.

  2. Well done, thank you. Cardinal Burke deserves enormous praise for quietly, charitably and courageously doing this while scorn was heaped upon his good name for his seeming inaction.

    • Brian, I know you have had dealings with Cardinal Burke before, just wondered if you knew Thomas McKenna, his director of communications? Seems to me that it might have been him on the other end of the interview that was published yesterday. 😉

      • Yes, I know Thomas well, and he did the interview. He introduced me to the good Cardinal at a pro life conference on end of life issues that Thomes and I cosponsored several years ago. Cardinal Burke was keynote speaker, and afterwards my two sons had the privilege to serve Benediction for the Cardinal. A great and holy man.

        • Thought it might be him. I met him at the Rome Life Conference a couple of years ago and helped him carry a banner on the March for Life. He’s a good man and events like that are good for the soul – you realize how many real Catholics there are still out there slogging away in this vale of tears.

  3. The fact that three of the four cardinals who wrote this letter are already retired speaks volumes. Reading between the lines, it isn’t difficult to deduce that the reason their brother cardinals who share the same views have not also spoken publicly is because they fear retribution from “the most merciful Pope EVAH!” Cardinal Burke, who apparently doesn’t think he has anything left to lose, has already been made an example of; what happened to him, Francis has made clear, will happen to any of his underlings who do not toe his line.

    Based on three years worth of observations of this pontiff’s blatantly obvious intellectual deficiencies, I doubt Francis even realizes the irony in the “rigidity” he displays to those who dare to disagree with him. Or perhaps he does, and he simply doesn’t care, as his own ego and ideology blind him to his hypocrisy.

    Of course, as we all know, the only rigid people are those damn trads who just won’t go away. Liberals, in their own minds, are never, ever rigid or unmerciful. (sarcasm off)

  4. This is the beginning of the End of Pope Francis’ abuse of his office. It might have to get real ugly for awhile but that is the cost of Discipleship to our Lord and our Holy Mother the Church.

    Sorry for any typos, stuck with phone, away from Rectory until tomorrow.

    May God soon deliver His Church from the heretical despots who have infiltrated her highest offices.

    • Ask any leader of any organization or company: When your senior employees (in this case, the cardinals) begin turning on you (and publicly to boot, due to your own refusal to deal with a problem of your own creation), you’ve already lost. All you can do at that point is either a) reverse course and try to put the best possible spin on it to try and salvage your own reputation or b) decide you don’t give a damn and run the whole thing into the ground.

      The ball is now in Francis’s court. Will he choose to try to salvage his legacy and reverse course, or will he maintain his present trajectory and be remembered as the worst pope in history?

      • He will choose B. In essence he already has.
        It has been apparent since 13 March 2013, and it continues to work out that way. This moment appears to have been the intention of the cartel who maneuvered his election. Go back and review the reportage on the St. Gallen Group, remarks by Cardinals Danneels, Murphy-O’Connor. Austin Ivereigh’s biography of Francis — first printing pulled for exposing too much.
        Cardinal Maradiaga illuminated the profile of this pontificate clearly in January 2015. “The Pope wants to take this Church renovation to the point where it becomes irreversible.”
        The metamorphosis is underway.
        He wants this fight.

      • Unless God directly intervenes like with Saul (St Paul), it aint gonna happen. I agree with James, unless a miracle, B it is.

      • “Run the whole thing into the ground”??

        Only from the perspective of the 4 Cardinals…only from the perspective of the Conservative/Traditional Faithful. But from the perspective of the, shall we say, Conveniently Catholic…from the perspective of the Relativist New Ager’s….from the perspective of those who rejoiced at the smile-filled meeting between the Pope and Italy’s “Most Famous Abortionist” (… the nominally rejected ‘CEO’ simply runs the whole thing into a place & time the Faithful will not recognize. And down the Rabbit-Hole we tumble — welcome to Wonderland.

        Your analogy is good….but there is a critical difference we must recognize. If a CEO is rejected by Senior Employees…or Members of the Board….or even a significant portion of his workforce (Strike!)…there are visible and very real consequences which become immediately evident: the Organization shudders to a halt. Product is not produced….profits not made…and the purpose for which the organization is formed is not fulfilled. At that point the rejection becomes complete — the CEO is on the street, his replacement found, and the Organization sprints to recover its prior legitimacy. BUT — if the majority of the ‘Senior Employees’ refuse to recognize the rejection….if the Traditonal/Faithful are lost in a new tidal wave of secular/semi-theistic endorsement (Yay! Abortions may be bad–but obviously (per that grinning image) not evil (and perhaps simply a matter of exigent circumstance). Adultery we can work around — hurrah! Income Inequality the new Satan. The Change List is long…and incredibly popular.), then the ‘Rejection’ is no more than aberration: an inability of the ‘losers’ to move to the ‘right side of history’.

        In such a nightmare, the Backwards are quietly cut loose and we all move on to our Brightly Progressive Future.

        “I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” Where indeed?

    • Why is it the end? If he ignores it who will care other than the tiny informed minority that is already fed up with him? And what will the Cardinals do to force the issue from here? They can demand answers and he can simply shrug and say, “Make me.”

      Sure theologically and juridicialy speaking he “must” comply, but what does that mean practically? The answer is practically nothing unless there is some heretofore unforeseen ground swell against him.

      As I’ve said before, if we’ve learned anything from this pontiff it’s that just because something is a theological impossibility doesn’t mean it won’t happen; conversely, then, just because something is a theological necessity doesn’t mean it will happen.

      My guess, and I hope I’m wrong, is that he will just shrug this off because, quite frankly, not enough people actually care.

      • Interesting comment Brian, However I disagree with you. God often uses small numbers of truthful people to effect change, it’s never about numbers and always about speaking the truth.

        • Precisely, you’ve conceded my point. The small group MUST effect change; i.e. mobilize a heretofore unseen groundswell of support against Francis. But failing that, this will all go down the memory hole sooner rather than later.

          Here’s the rub: if 4 Cardinals level charges only to be faced down by 36 Cardinals declaring them baseless – even if those charges be true – practically speaking this goes nowhere.

          In the unlikely event that pressure mounts to where Francis determines he must do something, my guess is that he will simply appoint a committee to study the issue, and we’ll get our answer shortly after they settle on what to do about Medjugorje or the FFI.

          Here’s a hint: “Soon, soon…”

          • When He chooses to manifest it. God has allowed Francis to hold the See of Peter for purposes that you and I can only guess at.

            You seem to be of the opinion that things with Francis have gotten so bad that surely He will use these dubia to remove him. Well, if it doesn’t go that way – the way we’re all hoping (i.e. Francis is sacked) what then of the power of God?

            If His purposes with Francis are done then any dubia will do, but if not, this will just be about 4 Cardinals who once courageously said “not me” when a pope went off the rails.

          • Dear Brian, It’s Interesting that they are trying to speed up their error, also the last four words could be speaking volumes.

            November 14, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Liberal-minded Cardinal Karl Lehmann is urging his fellow German bishops to change Church discipline quickly while Francis is still Pope.

          • God is using this time to separate the wheat from the chaff, the faithful from the unfaithful. What we need to do is pray for an end to this tyranny.

      • You’re probably right Brian, in the short term. But it’s the longer term, and this action will probably make Francis go down in history as an apostate / heretic Pope.

        Remember this has only happened once before, in the 7th century with monothelite Pope Honorius 1st. So that in itself will make the Francis modernists camp shudder cause they’ve pushed these Cardinals into an unprecedented call-out. Furthermore this historical move will reverberate around the traditionalist world, and it’s that, that’ll see Francis condemned as a heretic by their history. So it’ll be history that’ll write him off, and these good Cardinals: Burke, Caffara, Brandmuller and Meisner ( no Pell? ) have courageously drawn that line and said no more Francis.

    • Yes! If this Cardinal has any say, and he does, thanks be to God…epic times lay ahead, even if ugly at first as you said! I know God hears and sees faithful priests and prelates, such as you, willing to suffer. May God see your obedience and all the faithful’s obedience expiating the rampant disobedience! May we lay faithful see how truly merciful God is! We do not deserve such faithful priests and cardinals! But, in His mercy He has and is raising you up! I’m very consoled! I don’t deserve such consolation!

    • Whether this will be the beginning of the end? I am not sure.
      The author of a blog at Germany’s state-run news ZDF seems to think that the fact that these questions are being asked is not very significant.

      He says,
      “One shouldn’t exaggerate the significance of the letter. Four of more than 200 cardinals wrote. They belong to the representatives of the church that already repeatedly made clear during the synod on marriage and family that they refuse any kind of change. In conservative circles they are receiving much applause for their recent action. Their effect will likely be limited, however.”

      “Man darf den Brief auch nicht überbewerten. Vier von über 200 Kardinälen
      haben geschrieben. Sie gehören zu den Kirchenvertretern, die schon
      während des synodalen Prozesses zu Ehe und Familie immer wieder deutlich
      gemacht haben, dass sie jegliche Veränderung ablehnen. In konservativen
      Kreisen bekommen sie viel Beifall für ihre neuerliche Aktion. Ihre
      Wirkung dürfte aber begrenzt sein.”

  5. Thank God for these faithful Cardinals ! Now at long last, by the Grace of our Most Merciful Lord Jesus, the Church will be rid of this manifest heretic once and for all !

  6. In September 2016 the publication of Pope Francis’ letter to Monsignor Sergio Alfredo Fenoy clarifies any ambiguity in “Amoris Laetitia.” The entire situation has been illuminated for what it is.
    That said there appears, unsurprisingly, to be a further agenda at play within the “Amoris” conundrum. The Domus Sanctae Marthae surely foresaw the development we learn of this morning and they were prepared for it. We need cast the mantle of trusting naiveté far aside. “Amoris Laetitia” was not a simple statement about marriage, it was a high-impact slug inaugurating the real contest.
    Cardinal Maradiaga illuminated the profile of this pontificate clearly in January 2015. “The Pope wants to take this Church renovation to the point where it becomes irreversible.”
    We know what we are dealing with, and so do the Cardinals who have now approached the dilemma with the appropriate protocols and procedures. God willing these four courageous men, with a vast number of their confreres in the College of Cardinals, will see this brought to its proper conclusion very soon, no matter what the cost, no matter what the scandal.
    Saint Teresa of Jesus who hoped to see her Carmel’s inhabited by virile nuns, said something to the effect that she would give her life to save one soul. Is our hierarchy composed of enough men willing to endure an ecclesiastical martyrdom to forestall the metamorphosis presently underway?

  7. Thanks be to God for these four Cardinals who are living up to their cardinalatial oaths. But how sad that such an atmosphere of fear and intimidation exists around the Holy See that others did not feel free to express similar concerns openly.

    What rigidity must underly such an authoritarian regime?
    What lack of humility must be evident in the governance of the affairs of the Church of God?
    What lack of love must allow such a climate of fear to thrive?
    How unmerciful to allow confusion and ambiguity to obscure the clear, true and beautiful doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
    How unmerciful to lead poor sinners to the gates of hell by affirming them in sins of adultery and sacrilege instead of leading them to the field hospital of God’s infinite mercy which is experienced in the grace of repentance?

    “REPENT and believe in the Gospel, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” Who would dare to dismiss the Word of God as unmerciful, rigid and pharisaical?

    • Anyone who has inhabited religious life during the last fifty years knows the character of left-wing fanatics. They are ruthless, vindictive narcissists. They are capable of anything. Vocations discarded like garbage. Lives ruined. Apostolates trashed.
      Simply look at what they have accomplished in dismantling a thriving Roman Catholicism since October 1958 — even when for three decades they did not wield power.
      But that presents another question — how could John Paul and Benedict not discern what was going on under their nose. How could he not foresee the consequence of resignation? I ask this as one deeply impacted for the good by these wonderful men.
      There is a lot to be answered for.
      We have been poorly served.

      • John Paul and Benedict not discern what was going on under their nose
        That’s how you see it and not others. Kasper’s proposal went nowhere under them. It is Pope St. John Paul II the Great’s solid and orthodox works rooted in Tradition which, as I have said before, the innovators can’t get past, and these are works upon which the 4 brave Cardinals base their “dubia”.
        It seems some always can’t resist smearing the happy memory of the great and saintly pope, thus exposing themselves.

        • I think he is referring more to the appointments made by them then their actual teaching. Though there is the seeming scandal of Assisi.

          • Another non-sequitur smear.
            Let’s approach it this way. Some of us perhaps before being married [if we are] were young and wild. And then when we were called to marriage, and now faced with the new awesome responsibilities, settled down. God and Pope Francis himself can never be taken out of the equation nor the people involved in the process of ordaining priests, and appointing Bishops and Cardinals. A great and saintly pope like Pope St. John Paul II the Great will for sure must have taken it to prayer but the candidates proposed to him via the customary process in place were those candidates before him. At all the stages, called to the priesthood, called to the Bishopric, called to the Cardinalate, elevated to the papacy were opportunities for Jorge Bergoglio to realize the grave and awesome responsibilities he was assuming, and for him to beg God for help, and to “settle down” in pasturing the LORD’s flock and with the papacy, strengthening his brethren.
            It is good to review here the parable of the wheat and tares/cockle.

        • rmichaelj below is absolutely correct. John Paul’s episcopal appointments were not infrequently inadequate. In the case of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires tragic. Then to raise this individual to the College of Cardinals, simply unimaginable. Nevertheless, the cadre of the heterodox who inhabit the College can look to him as their mentor. How is this possible?
          It is a very real a disturbing question.
          I do not bring this up lightly, FMSyanguya. I have a deep loyalty and devotion to Pope Saint John Paul, but his management of this component of Church life was nothing less than tragic. We cannot avert our eyes from simple realities.
          I try to reason it out that both JPII and Benedict trusted these men to ultimately be loyal to Christ and His Church, and that those appointed pulled the wool over the eyes of those reviewing their comportment. This itself is a rude reality in the clerical sphere. In fact, it is viral.

      • Dear James,

        I’m sure that you are aware of the following:

        We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and … of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever experienced. This was spoken by the future Pope John Paul II in 1976.

        Another example:

        The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.
        She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members…. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 1969.

  8. Can I be the first to say “Not my Pope!” ….??

    And now the elephant in the room; what does Benedict the Abdicator have to say about all of this? We all know that Francis’ plan has been to undermine the traditional teaching and practice of the Church on important moral issues since day 1. So it’s no surprise that he refuses to answer. But what of Benedict? Does he support these four cardinals? Or is he supporting Francis? Or is he straddling the fence?

    We need to know.

    Have we all got the message yet that when a reigning Pope tosses in the towel, bad things start to happen quickly?

    • I would say his predecessors were also Modernists, though not as blatant. Soros is getting impatient, as he is ageing too. NWO in both the political & religious sphere is finally now under attack. Prayer & support for these Cardinals is a given. They know the route that must be taken but this Dubia needs answering & if the CDF wants to show its relevance it has to insist PF does respond or face the consequences.

  9. I predict nothing will happen. There is no sensus catholicus in the concilior church anymore. Joe Pewsitter has been thoroughly indoctrinated into V2 relativism. There will be no groundswell. The 4 Cardinals will be ignored and/or marginalized. I implore my traditional minded Catholics to stop looking for the modernist concilior church to “fix” itself. What these Cardinals and some bishops should do is hold an imperfect council, declare Francis a heretic, renounce everything that has happened in the last 54 years, and elect a true Pope. That would be courage. Anything less is compromise.

    • None of us are looking to the “modernist concilior church” for anything. We’re looking to Christ and the Catholic Church. I realize you’re a sedevacantist who doesn’t want to take the name and don’t believe what we see is the true church… or something. But the fact is, this IS the Church and she’s in great travail, and we look to Our Lord and the authorities he has placed. There IS a sensus catholicus, and it’s beginning to see what’s going on. If you only knew how many people I had coming to me, Novus Ordo indoctrinated all, saying “So… what’s up with this pope? He doesn’t sound Catholic…” or “Hey… can I come to the Latin Mass with you sometime?” you’d be shocked. The Church is waking up. I came from the “worship JPII, Benedict is the greatest pope ever!” crowd myself. Something will happen. These Cardinals aren’t done.

  10. Almighty and Everlasting God, have mercy on Thy servant Francis, our Supreme Pontiff, and direct him, according to Thy loving kindness, in the way of eternal salvation, that with Thy help he may ever desire that which is pleasing to Thee and accomplish it with all his strength. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

  11. The USCCB election this week will tell us much. If DiNardo (who bravely signed the “Letter of the 13 Cardinals”) is elected president and someone like Chaput or even Gomez is elected vice-president while papal favorites like Cupich, Tobin and McElroy are sidelined, it will represent an utter repudiation of Francis by the American episcopacy.

  12. I don’t understand what the problem is here. Francis clearly said that the official interpretation of AL is that given by Schonborn and that a correct example of it’s application is that given by the bishops of Argentina! Why is anyone still seeking clarification? It’s CLEAR!! It’s been clear for 3.75 years as to what’s going on here. This kind of talk such as “Dear Most Holy Father, we want to work with you, we want to be in union with you, etc” is, I’m frankly afraid to say, rather pathetic. Archbishop Lefebvre tried a similar type of language but towards the end he realised “enough of this, I’m just going to say it like it is”. I wouldn’t even bother appealing to Francis. He’s clearly positioned himself exactly where he wants to be, no not because he’s surrounded by manipulating clergy, not because the media twists his words or don’t provide the full context, but because this is who he is and how he thinks, period!

    • I don’t understand what the problem is here
      For the true good of souls, it is to reconcile his clear stand with the clear perennial position of the Church if at all that is possible.

      • It can not be reconciled. It is impossible. That is ultimately what will bring this down, hopefully sooner than later.
        He has to go.

        • Indeed. Why bother trying to “give the benefit of the doubt” when all cause for doubt ceased to exist long ago.

      • Ultimately I agree with you. I love the papacy and I would give my life to defend it but when it’s being abused and aimed (directly or indirectly) for the ruin of souls, defence turns to offence.The point I was trying to make is that Catholic’s have been asking clarification from the pope for over three years on a variety of things. In fact, we’ve been waiting for clarification on the documents of Vatican II for fifty years. Unfortunately the best we got was Benedict’s ‘hermeneutic of continuity’. An argument can be made that we apply the same hermeneutic to Amoris Laeticia. Will that solve this problem? Don’t think so.

        • What helps me is looking at the great and awesome reality of the Church being the body of Christ. And just as the whole body mounts a vigorous defense against anything inimical to it, so the Church, hierarchy and laity alike have a duty to resist any foreign doctrine even if emanating from a pope.
          It will change because of Christ’s promise. We are a people of Faith, HOPE, and Charity.

  13. Isn’t this funny this is happening at the same time as Trump is elected? I believe God is intervening with us to turn our world back to him. May God continue to pour his grace on us.

    God help us!

  14. Finally. Heretic Francis will be shown to be the wolf that he is. How sad that only 4 cardinals spoke out, but how consistent that is with weak leadership, such as was during the terror of Henry VIII.

    • I read somewhere that there were other Cardinals/Bishops who signed the Dubai, but did not want to be identified if the letter went public.

      • Thomas,

        There are obviously more ‘silent/undisclosed’ signatories as suggested in this report by Fr Claude Barthe (translated from the french on the blog ‘L’Homme Nouveau’ ):

        “On 14 November, four of the cardinals opposed to the questioning of morality, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, former president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, patron of the Order of Malta, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna, and Cardinal Joachim Meisner, Archbishop Emeritus of Cologne, published the unanswered questions to the Pope on the site of Sandro Magister. It is also known that Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was personally responsible for presenting them to the Pope, that all the signatories of these questions did not consider it expedient to publicize their names, and that they were supported by other oral or written interventions of Curia cardinals.”

        The final clause of the last sentence refers.

    • I doubt that only these 4 were involved. I suspect that a group of faithful cardinals put these 4 to the task of handling this. We’ll see. I hope… I PRAY, that Cardinals Sarah and Mueller add their voices and ask for an answer. These 2 are the ones who can really bring this to a close.

  15. This sounds like the same movie but the ending is different. Pope Francis is King Henry and the four cardinals are St. Thomas More. Unlike the movie, the four cardinals will not be beheaded nor will anything else happen to them. But Pope Francis, as king, and he thinks he is king, has the power to do nothing and not suffer any earthly consequences. He is also surrounded by prelates who will back him up and stay his course. It will take more than this public dubia action to stop this marxist and his clan. This scenario has been building for decades. They will not be stopped by mere words on paper.

  16. The good Cardinals are targeting the symptoms. The dubia should have targeted VII. One of the yes or no questions should have been, “Is the Catholic Church the Church of Christ?”.

    • Bingo!!!! Someone finally gets it.

      Yet modernist Rome says it “subsists” and not “is”. And one of the authors of this heresy was Ratzinger.

  17. I saw this via Edward Pentin’s twitter and NCR article very early this morning and it got me thinking. We all know about the 19 theological censures sent by 45 theologians… these censures were sent to the Cardinals to take to the Pope, not directly to the Pope himself. It seems that this is likely what was taken to the Pope as prompted by that document. And so it seems this is where we’re at regarding that document.

    I’m encouraged. So many of us, myself included at times, have been disappointed with the Cardinals and Bishops, even to the point of leveling criticism at these men. Some even calling them cowards. We need to be far more gracious and move more slowly. We’ve been taken in, just like the rest of the world, by this culture of mass information all the time. God is here, and he has faithful servants.

    That said, this is the beginning of the end. Things will likely get worse before they get better. Pope Francis will try to hammer home many of his innovations. Look out for Lutheran Communion, Deaconesses, Married Priests, and other travesties. I’m not saying they’ll all happen, but he’ll try. Pray for our bishops and priests. Pray for Pope Francis and the salvation of his soul. Teach and preach the truth. Also, share this information with others in social media. We need a large group of the faithful demanding Pope Francis to answer these questions.

  18. The greatest weapon in the arsenal of liberals — Francis IS a liberal, regardless of whatever else one may say he is — is ambiguity, the love of circumlocution and the refusal to give straight answers. Since the four cardinals have presented him with questions demanding a definite “yes” or “no,” he trots out another tactic favored by practiced liberals, deferment. Liberals both secular and ecclesiastical always hope that, if they delay sufficiently, their antagonists will simply tire of the chase, and that they can then proceed with their actions free of annoying objections. Unfortunately it often works in the political realm and liberals get away with their schemes. But in the Church where questions involve more than earthly life and death, and where institutional history stretches back more than 2000 years. I don’t think postponement will work very well. Whether he likes it or not, Francis’ words have been seriously undermined by the cardinals. Bravo for them!

    • I hope you’re right, but am afraid that’s wishful thinking. If he determines that he must do something, he will appoint a committee to study the issue, and we’ll get our answer shortly after they settle on what to do about Medjugorje.

      EDIT: or better yet after they settle on what to do about the FFI…soon, soon…

      • Brian, whether he decides to say something – unlikely given that he is a liberal and they prefer duplicity to confrontation – or to drag his heels, the cardinals’ actions are “out there,” as they say in politics. Even if he were somehow to force them to retract their words, any rational person would demand to know exactly why it’s necessary to refrain from asking legitimate questions or to demand clarification of ambiguities. I think the four cardinals have quite cleverly boxed in a man whose opinions are at odds with the Church’s teachings. They are trying to force him to tip his hand and may well succeed.

      • I’m not sure what you mean; the news I’ve heard is fine to date. Is it perhaps that Rience Priebus was made Chief of Staff? If so, I think you’re being premature in judging both his future performance and his immediate past actions. Trump appreciates loyalty, and during the Bush-tape scandal, when Chris Christie gave signs of distancing himself from the boss, Rience didn’t flinch. Also, remember that DC is filled with RINOs, people with whom DJT is forced to work, like it or not. (Also remember that no movement is rectilinear and may have its bumps and false starts. There are things about Trump’s thinking that have evolved [pro-life, for example] and others that, lamentably, have not [notions about homosexual relations & marriage. Rome wasn’t built in a day and it will take more than one to demolish Western secular liberalism.)

      • Sorry I didn’t see your link before I answered the first time (just saw it on the Disqus notification to my e-mail). What bothers you is DJT’s statement on 60 Minutes about sodomite “marriage.” Here’s my take on it.

        Trump is thrice married and has children by all three women involved. That fact alone is sufficient to tell any Catholic he is far from our understanding of morality. Furthermore, he has a habit of shooting from the hip in both directions. To cite just one example, I remember thinking it was all over back when he told an interviewer women who had abortions should be punished. Anyone the least familiar with the debate knows that is not now and never has been a mainline pro-life argument. He later rectified his comment after talking with advisers. What we see here is a man who has a faulty, i.e. Protestant, notion of morality. (I have heard he subscribes to the Crystal Cathedral or Robert H. Schuller version of “upbeat” Christianity) But at least he seems willing to learn from his mistakes. In his campaign, he promoted himself as a businessman, not a moral theologian.

        For that reason, I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in his initial take on the legalization of sodomic parodies of marriage. Just for argument’s sake, though, let’s assume he does believe this nonsense, even though it contradicts the current platform of the GOP. Does that undermine the entire Trump movement? For solid reasons I don’t believe that to be the case.

        First, he has promised to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. It’s highly likely judges of this mind will also restrict if not overturn entirely Obergefell v. Hodges if given the chance because, as we all know, it was pure judicial legerdemain. Serious judges cannot abide by this kind of absurdity. (What is more, we don’t need to guess what Mrs. Clinton’s appointments would have done.)

        Second, Trump’s election signals not only an unexpected trouncing of the Clinton enterprise, a great thing in itself, but also a tremendous setback for the Democrat Party, one of the chief vehicles for evil in the world today. By this I mean that the movement goes far beyond Trump himself. People across the nation are gradually rejecting settled Democrat “values,” things like political correctness and a corrupt, lying media. “Rural America” is finding its voice and finally standing up to “urban America.” Trump isn’t the only indication of this either. For several years, Democrats have been losing governorships and state legislatures, the instruments needed to right our electoral laws and prevent the rampant Democrat cheating that has stolen election after election.

        Trump is not the last step in rebuilding what liberals and radicals have all but destroyed, but he’s a good first step. He will make some good moves and, I am sure, many lamentable missteps. Still, he’s so much better than the alternative that all of us should be happy. It took the Alinskyites many decades to dismantle the republic; it will take at least as many to rebuild it. As I said before, we Catholics must be as wise as serpents in the political arena, and that means at times having to suffer through idiotic statements like the one Trump uttered on 60 Minutes.

        • You lay out your reasoning very well. Impressive and Mahalo.

          POTUS described him as “pragmatic” and that’s what comes across from your comment. Maybe it was an answer for just this moment knowing if he answered otherwise, it would all the more add to the serious opposition he is currently facing.
          I too have hope but I also know that “unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain”. Herein lies his success.
          Many in the geopolitical world can’t help but notice that America is in decline. Therefore another way I look at it is that from history, no “empire” was has ever come back. And finally, from what I can characterize as “eschatological signs”, it appears that he is out of time although it is apparent that he plays a key role in those signs [Europe, where the beast and the false prophet are, is shaking].

        • Trump’s famiy attended the church of Norman Vincent Peale, who was indeed the main guiding light of Robert Schuller.

          • Thanks. Arthur. I read somewhere that he and Schuller had some connection but I wasn’t sure exactly how. I suspect Peale’s exuberantly presumptuous approach to Christianity may explain some of DJT’s more outlandish religious notions.

  19. So the letter was given to him Sept 19th 2016?
    That explains his bold and provocative statements and actions since receiving the letter to date:
    1. Inter Communion dialogue in Sweden
    2. Removing Cardinal Sarah from speaking at JP Pontifical Council on Life
    3.) Relinquishing members of JP Pontifical Council on Life from having to sign pro-life claus
    4.) Mean spirited and anti- Latin Rite Mass comments regarding the youth who are drawn to TLM
    5.) Meeting with priests who broke their vows to marry

    I had wondered why he has such an energy to speak and act in ways that are harmful to the Body of Christ and with open heretical statements in Lund, Sweden.

    Now I know why! Oh what energy this man has. He will not go down easily. But he will eventually.

  20. Here we go again.

    Pope Martin Luther Saladin will have his self-proclaimed “orthodox” supporters who will try to explain how all of this is a big misunderstanding and he is more orthodox than Pope Pius V and then those who can actually read will have something else to say.

    The only people who are confused by this Pope are those who still think he is Catholic.

    Those who think he is Lutheran {like many of us ex-Lutherans} will not be confused at all.

  21. PS:


    These men have gone to him privately {2 months ago, etc} and NOW they are bringing it to the Church as instructed in the Scriptures.

    Next will come actually dealing with it.

    And Pope Saladin will not be happy.

    {Matthew 18:17}

  22. Steve is right; Francis the First is in a cleft stick of his own cutting. Not only he himself, but also every bishop, diocese,, priest and parish have been confronted with thes Cardinals’ questions–questions from which (for Kasperites) there is no escape. It is also a principle of moral theology that one cannot act on doubt. While dubia remain, Amoris cannot be implemented. Now, will the Kasperites implement it anyway? They will try. But their cover is blown, and cover is mainly what they wanted from the Synods in the first place. God bless Cardinal Burke et al.!

  23. What a Joy to read. Praying that those trying to destroy the church from within whomever they may be are revealed and converted.

  24. Almighty God has true servants in his vineyard, sadly too few. But this very bad pope will have to convert or abdicate, soon , please God.

  25. I wonder where US archbishops and priests are…? . The EWTN. National Catholic Register. Women religious, all religious orders, all Catholic groups…Catholic League…..stand up for our Church…

    • Americans are a strange lot. We believe we have the right to protest all things political, but Never show the least sign of lack of submission to a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We are ignorant of the God given means to challenge and confront the wolf, which is done differently than American protesting, therefore falsely believe there is no way. There has been proper ways all along. We were just too busy with protesting things American.

    • Wow! Is it true that Spadaro said this? He’s considered a Francis mouthpiece. Essentially, he tweeted “he’s already answered these questions [in his letter to the Argentine bishops] and these cardinals just don’t like the answers.”

      To me, that means that Francis has no intention of responding.

      • The answers to the Dubia require more than a tweet from one of his many dubious advisers – they require an ex cathedra response. “Qui tacet consentire” applies & no response means GUILTY. The automatic anathema is then applied.

        • I just wonder who’s going to apply it and who’s going to enforce it? By his trivializing response – if that’s what Spadaro’s tweet was – it’s clear he has no fear of the Cardinals or anyone else.

          • To be clear. The Pope must answer these questions himself – Yes or No. His answers must be absolutely unambiguous. They must conform to the Magisterium if he is to remain as Pope. If they differ (as AL & new Marriage Laws do) then he self-declares as a heretic & must resign. So he has a choice to either recant & rescind these errors or vacate the Papal Office.

  26. Can we not conclude from this that Pope Francis is giving every evidence of being a heretic. And further since a heretic cannot be Pope we must conclude that Pope Francis is no longer the Pope and the seat is vacant.

      • The problem is not the proposition that Bergoglio appears to be a heretic, and may not be Pope, but your arrogating to yourself the task of making that judgment. There are others in the Church who will make that declaration in good time, if and when they judge it their duty.

        • We are basically in an interregnum period. Bergolio has apostasized and we are awaiting the official announcment. The problem is that too many clerics want to prop up his dead body and pretend he is still pope.

  27. “We are deeply concerned about the true good of souls, the supreme law of the Church and not about promoting any form of politics in the Church.”

    With that one sentence, the four cardinals have clearly stated their position – a position that is diametrically opposed to that of the Pope and his henchmen with their diabolically disoriented agenda.

    These Princes of the Church (in the true sense of the title) are doubtless just as aware of what is happening in the Church as say, the OnePeter5 community and this manifestation of their practice of the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice and fortitude is deeply appreciated. On the prudential aspect, I’m sure they weren’t holding their breath waiting on the papal reply and had already decided back in September that they would have to make their letter public in mid-November and like any good chess player, have long ago been aware of their next two/three/more moves in this vital battle for the Bride of Christ.

  28. Ok, so again, as I ask people after every report about the Holy Father’s antics —- what can be done about it???? Yes, I know pray. That still does not answer the question. Does he lose his job for preaching heresy? How does this work? I don’t understand how a pope can be a heretic or an open sinner and still be pope. maybe I’m a dummy. But please, can I just get an honest answer to an honest question?

  29. This is getting very interesting!!

    Below is an interview with Cardinal Burke:

    Burke’s reference to Matthew 18:15 ff is VERY important! This passage of Scripture is key. Burke has sent us ALL {Pope, too} a message.

    This passage needs no “reinterpretation”. It is one of the most clear passages in Scripture. It is technical in that it presents a procedure. It is not heavily doctrinal or theological. And thus it outlines steps to follow in practical PASTORAL fashion.

    In some translations the word “offends” is “sins” or “trespasses”. Now whether Cardinal Burke wants to go specifically THERE at this point is unknown, but what IS known, is that he sees this current situation, and not he only, but others, as grave, very serious and thus falling into the category of circumstances warranting resort to the method of the Scripture passage, a method that has a very “unhappy” end result if the “offender” refuses to comply with the guidance. Folks, we are watching St Paul school St Peter just like he did when St Peter {no doubt for “mercy” sake} caved in to the circumcision crowd as noted in the Scriptures..

    This is something we can share with our non-Catholic and Protestant friends and family, for it demonstrates the Church in action, the Church reflective of the guidance of Sacred Scripture in confronting a very serious dilemma and the Church PRESERVING THE FAITH ON AN ISSUE ALL OF THE PROTESTANTS HAVE LONG AGO CAVED IN ON!!

    From what might be called a political examination of events, we have something very interesting taking place. The Pope has painted himself into a corner. With effectively no resistance till recently from the Bishops, he has run wild in his writings and teaching. He has pushed HARD against the envelope and his actions and words encourage heretics and those who are unknowledgeable about the teaching of the Church to act in defiance of it.

    This is a shot across the bow that has clipped the fore rigging.

  30. Herein lies another issue. Why is it that the Cardinals only cite post VII documents when the Church has 2000 years of teachings in oppodition to the Popes nonsense?

    • Good observation.

      As a convert I have often reflected on this in wonder, because what brought me to the Church was the Scriptures and the ancient teaching {Fathers, etc}. You are right. It is something of a new tradition that seems to occur I THINK when done by “orthodox” prelates as a method by which to legitimize the wholeness of V2, almost as it they know it is shaky and needs to be propped up.

        • Hard to imagine it being rescinded, but Bishop Schneider has called for a Syllabus of Errors.

          Maybe some time in the future?

      • That’s not quite true because, as you can see in the letter of the Cardinals to Pope Francis, they quote Veritatis Splendour by John Paul II in order to defend against modernist errors–namely, to reaffirm the universality of moral norms and the objective principles which uphold Catholic moral teaching in ALL cases.

  31. If the Pope is chosen with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what is it we are supposed to be learning from the selection? It is clear the church is under attack. How are we to respond?

    Come Holy Spirit come and fill us with your wisdom that we may do the Lord’s will in defense of His church here on earth.

    • The Holy Ghost does not pick the pope, Tom. The cardinals in conclave maintain their free will, and may choose, if they so desire, to disregard His guidance. So don’t think you have to believe that the selection of each and every specific pontiff is willed by God. He may permit a terrible pope to be appointed to the throne of St. Peter, but He does not necessarily will it.

      • Not saying that is what God’s intention was with this Pope, but seriously, how would all the heretics have been flushed out had they not had an encouraging Pope like Francis to flush them? So we see how good may come from evil. A future good Pope may by a direct act or indirectly bring order and purity to the Church by offering conversion for the heretics or a boot on the ass sending them out into the world.

        I dare say many strong Catholics have gotten stronger under Francis, as well, as they really dig into the Scriptures and the documents of the Church in search of the TRUTH when he gives us something other than that.

      • I agree LB, God never interferes with our free will.
        The rest of my comment, unfortunately, stands; There is something to be learned, Mother Church is under attack. We need to respond.

    • My nature is with you, but I am a “young” Catholic. I really see God testing the prelates and US. Them to stand up and US to remember that we live in relationship to Christ personally, not thru some vague vicarious intermediary called the Pope. We as Catholics cannot simply act as if the Pope lives the Christian faith for us and we don’t have to study, pray, meditate and act.

      For me anyway, this whole mess has really drawn me closer to the Lord and to His CHURCH thru the constancy of teaching that HAS been placed before us. And now by seeing these men follow the pattern laid out before them in Sacred Scripture. Now i WANT my :Protestant family and friends to follow this, because in their religious groups the issues we are struggling with today have LONG AGO BEEN LOST AND ABANDONED.

      Bergoglio and his diverse opinions and “teaching’ has had the effect fof forcig me to really study the doctrines of the faith.

      So in a weird way, I am grateful to Francis for that at least.

      Having said that, Lord, may we please have a good Pope now?

  32. Pick up your rosary. If you don’t already, sit your family down and pray it. Stay faithful to your daily duty according to your state in life. Avoid sin like you would an open sewer.

    Pop popcorn. Watch the fireworks.

    Brexit, Trump, and now–Churchmen, putting the heresy of the Pope on notice. Once a few stand up, the less brave will be more inclined.

    2017 is going to be an interesting ride.

      • They are going to push us out. At least they will subvert the faithful bishops and I don’t see the heretics leaving behind worldly comforts quickly or easily. That’s all they’ve got.

  33. If PF chooses to answer the letter from the four Cardinals, does anyone expect to
    able to understand his answers ? Unfortunately, PF has not been painted into a
    corner, in fact he is in a win win situation….he is free not to answer and the AL
    gobblely gook stands or he can answer with more gobblely gook.

    • Sure he can.

      But I believe the point of the Cardinals linking their method to the Scripture {see verse 17 entirely} is that they are not going to sit back and do nothing if he chooses such an approach. I do not believe they are the only 4 willing to move with this, either. The letter indicates there are more whose names have not been released. I do not think this was done flippantly or in haste. Any good lawyer will not go thru with such an act without a pretty good contingency plan, too, and your possible reactions by Francis are predictable as you say.

      No, tho I admit I’ve been a loudmouth in critiquing the way the prelates have handled Francis, I think this indicates a commitment to follow thru.

  34. This act by the four cardinals is very encouraging. And I agree with Steve that “These cardinals have effectively pushed Pope Francis into a corner.” So where to from here? Will the battle become even more fierce or will the Church finally be delivered from this grave crisis?

  35. Cardinal Burke proved with geometric certitude about a decade ago that EVERY violation of Canon 915 is grave matter. And that the SPECIES of the would-be communicant’s manifest grave sin is immaterial. I.e., Canon 915 is not about marriage. It is about all manifest grave sin. Including public support of abortion.

    The response of the American bishops? They voted overwhelmingly for a document (Catholics in Political Life) in which THEY GRANTED THEMSELVES PERMISSION TO COMMIT MORTAL SIN. I.e., they voted that each bishop may “legitimately” choose to give pro-abortion politicians and activists Communion.

    The enthusiasm of so many bishops for Communion-for-adulterers is logically required by their long-standing enthusiasm for Communion-for-Pelosi.

  36. The end of my story shows over at Spero News shows a real life example of “Amoris Leatitia” being used as a reason for a diocesan staff person to fail to practice the spiritual work of mercy of admonishing the sinner. This admonishment could result in protecting children from being given scandal, or could result in restoration of a marriage breakup.

  37. Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna
    – 8 Sep 1995 Appointed Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio, Italy | 264. St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
    – 24 Mar 2006 Elevated to Cardinal | 265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013)

    Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Prefect Emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura
    – 10 Dec 1994 Appointed Bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA | 264. St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
    – 20 Nov 2010 Elevated to Cardinal | 265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013)

    Walter Cardinal Brandmüller, President Emeritus of the Roman Curia – Other
    – 4 Jun 1998 Appointed President of the Roman Curia – Other | 264. St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
    – 4 Nov 2010 Appointed Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Mauretania | 265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013)
    – 20 Nov 2010 Elevated to Cardinal | 265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013)

    Joachim Cardinal Meisner, Archbishop Emeritus of Köln {Cologne}
    – 17 Mar 1975 Appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Erfurt-Meiningen, Germany | 262. Paul VI (1963-78)
    – 2 Feb 1983 Elevated to Cardinal | 264. St. John Paul II (1978-2005)

  38. Bishop Jan Wątroba, the Chariman of the Council for Family at the Polish Episcopate for greater clarity of Amoris Laetitia and answer from the Pope to the Dubia of Four cardinals
    Bishop Jan Wątroba the Chariman of the Council for Family at the Polish Episcopate stated “ It is a pity that there is no universal interpretation and clear message of the same document (Amoris Laetitia) and you need to add Exhortation’s interpretations. Personally – perhaps out of habit, but also with deep conviction – I prefer the communication at least such as that of St. John Paul II, where there was no need for comments and interpretations of the Peter’s teaching. How reads Polish Catholic News Agency KAI Bishop Watroba believes that publishing the letter four Cardinals to Pope Francis it is not reprehensible, but rather an expression of determination and concern for the proper understanding of the teaching of Peter.
    As he noted, the Polish Episcopate carefully reads the exhortation – both at the individual level and at the level of Council for Family at the Polish Episcopate which was obliged to prepare draft guidelines and guidance, especially in view of priests and confessors; it was formed an informal group of theologians who are in the process of preparing such a document.
    The Chairman of the Council for Family noted that there is a lot of pressure and expectation to present as soon as possible to the priests a kind of manual regarding the so-called irregular situation. Here haste is not a good thing. The proposal will be presented probably at the March Conference of the Polish Episcopate.
    I’m waiting for an answer, for clarification, the more that I am bombarded with similar questions like other bishops or priests said in an interview with Polish Catholic Agency – KAI – Bishop Watroba, the the Chairman of the Council for Family at Polish Episcopate.
    Source: Polish Catholic News Agency KAI

Comments are closed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...