In a press release issued today, an international group of “Catholic academics and pastors” states that they have petitioned Rome to address serious theological problems with the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
Among the 45 signatories are Catholic prelates, scholars, professors, authors, and clergy from various pontifical universities, seminaries, colleges, theological institutes, religious orders, and dioceses around the world. They have asked the College of Cardinals, in their capacity as the Pope’s official advisers, to approach the Holy Father with a request that he repudiate “the errors listed in the document in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.”
According to their statement, the group
submitted an appeal to Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals in Rome, requesting that the Cardinals and Eastern Catholic Patriarchs petition His Holiness, Pope Francis, to repudiate a list of erroneous propositions that can be drawn from a natural reading of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia. During the coming weeks this submission will be sent in various languages to every one of the Cardinals and Patriarchs, of whom there are 218 living at present.
Describing the exhortation as containing “a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals,” the signatories submitted, along with their appeal, a documented list of applicable theological censures specifying “the nature and degree of the errors that could be attributed to Amoris laetitia.”
This is a noteworthy effort, and it seems fair to say that it is the single largest indication to date that the problematic passages in Amoris Laetitia that have been so widely commented upon are being taken seriously by at least some of those who have been charged with a duty to defend and teach the faith and nurture souls on the path to salvation.
“We are not accusing the Pope of heresy,” said Joseph Shaw, a signatory of the appeal who is also acting as spokesman for the authors, “but we consider that numerous propositions in Amoris laetitia can be construed as heretical upon a natural reading of the text. Additional statements would fall under other established theological censures, such as scandalous, erroneous in faith, and ambiguous, among others.”
The full text of the release follows:
Press Release
7/11/16
A group of Catholic academics and pastors has submitted an appeal to Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals in Rome, requesting that the Cardinals and Eastern Catholic Patriarchs petition His Holiness, Pope Francis, to repudiate a list of erroneous propositions that can be drawn from a natural reading of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia. During the coming weeks this submission will be sent in various languages to every one of the Cardinals and Patriarchs, of whom there are 218 living at present.
Describing the exhortation as containing “a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals,” the signatories submitted, along with their appeal, a documented list of applicable theological censures specifying “the nature and degree of the errors that could be attributed to Amoris laetitia.”
Among the 45 signatories are Catholic prelates, scholars, professors, authors, and clergy from various pontifical universities, seminaries, colleges, theological institutes, religious orders, and dioceses around the world. They have asked the College of Cardinals, in their capacity as the Pope’s official advisers, to approach the Holy Father with a request that he repudiate “the errors listed in the document in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that Amoris laetitia does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.”
“We are not accusing the pope of heresy,” said a spokesman for the authors, “but we consider that numerous propositions in Amoris laetitia can be construed as heretical upon a natural reading of the text. Additional statements would fall under other established theological censures, such as scandalous, erroneous in faith, and ambiguous, among others.”
The 1983 Code of Canon Law states that “According to the knowledge, competence, and expertise which they possess, they [the Christian faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful” (CIC, can. 212 §3).
The thirteen-page document quotes nineteen passages in the exhortation which seem to conflict with Catholic doctrines. These doctrines include the real possibility with the grace of God of obeying all the commandments, the fact that certain kinds of act are wrong in all circumstances, the headship of the husband, the superiority of consecrated virginity over the married life, and the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The document also argues that the exhortation undermines the Church’s teaching that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who have made no commitment to continence cannot be admitted to the sacraments while they remain in that state.
The spokesman said, “It is our hope that by seeking from our Holy Father a definitive repudiation of these errors we can help to allay the confusion already brought about by Amoris laetitia among pastors and the lay faithful. For that confusion can be dispelled effectively only by an unambiguous affirmation of authentic Catholic teaching by the Successor of Peter.”
Dr Joseph Shaw, an Oxford academic and a signatory to the appeal, is acting as spokesman for this group of Catholic scholars and pastors. The group has set up the email address [email protected] to answer press enquiries about the appeal.
Dr Shaw’s personal details can at the following link.
http://casuistrycentral.blogspot.co.uk/p/about-me.html
His role as signatory and spokesman for the group is as a private person, concerned Catholic, and philosopher, and should not be construed as representative of the institutions for which he serves in an official capacity.
I fear it will simply be ignored.
There’s nothing our prelates hate more than bad press. Share this everywhere you can.
Except CMTV. Go ahead, I double dog dare you!;)
That outfit is a really sorry sight.
How badly they must be itching to say it and they have to content themselves with the small fry.
It’s like you are seeing the head mafia but you keep reporting about his coterie.
People are asking: where is the link to the Petition.
Will they be making that available in the next few days?
I have not been made aware of any plans to release the petition. It is not the sort of petition that solicits public support. Those who have signed it are all high-level professionals in their disciplines, and they are, I’m given to understand, appealing to Rome as part of a technical process laid out to seek resolution in cases like this.
Mr Skojec, do you know whether the text of this petition to the Cardinals has been released, or is it, like the list of signatories, being kept under wraps at the moment?
Perhaps. But it can’t hurt to try.
Every petition so far has been ignored. What I would like to see is someone of high standing say something like, “Pope Francis is a heretic and furthermore he is trying to destroy the Church. He is a man of malice intent and can’t be trusted. I don’t know what the solution to this problem is but we cannot deny the problem exists anymore”
If he is a heretic (what seems to beomce increasingly obvious) he is is not Pope Francis and probably has never been pope.
True. The Church Fathers and prior Councils/popes have repeatedly taught that a pope can lose the Petrine office if he manifestly and materially continues after being fraternally confronted by proper ecclesiastical authority (i.e.- bishops). So, we will see how Francis responds. Silence says a million words.
Or he will throw a fit and call them all sorts of calumnies
Is there a list of signatories?
The fact that they haven’t released names right now is no doubt intentional. Especially for those in Catholic academia, the “mandatum” (Ex Corde Ecclesiae) is a double-edged sword. Taking an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium can be used against them if it appears that they’re attacking the Magisterium. I’ve been told by professors at Catholic colleges that if their local bishop revokes the mandatum, they can’t teach, even if they’re tenured.
All that said, I really hope they publish the whole thing, along with the signatories, at some point.
I can accept and understand the need for anonymity at this point. Why cause trouble for these brave souls. They have already put themselves on the line by signing. This may be the flood gate, I hope.
People need to see names. News reporters need to list names. People need to get fired. A battle will have some casualties, but anonymity pretends like there’s no battle at all or at least like they are running away from one.
From your mouth to the Lord’s ears.
To quote Bishop Sheen
“…Make no mistake about it. There are no cowards in heaven..”
We’ve been wondering when bishops and theologians would speak up. Well here it begins. Now we must pray it doesn’t just fizzle out.
Mary, Queen of the clergy, pray for us and our pastors!
Good. My thanks to Mr Shaw and the signatories.
The first answer that comes to me is usually wrong.
So here is my second answer:
It is my church.
Keep digging.
Humbly, joyfully, and ambitiously, of course!
“Humbly, joyfully, and ambitiously, of course!”
I read this too quickly at first and thought it said ‘ambiguously’ instead of ‘ambitiously’. Can’t image why I would have made that mistake …
My teaching is very clear.
Don’t image otherwise.
These Catholic theologians and prelates did a WONDERFUL job of listing all the heretical items contained in AL. As I said a couple of days ago in another post on this website, they listed out all the “anathemas” for a future Council and/or pope to read.
The theologians say that will not accuse the pope of heresy, but WHY NOT!? If what he signed includes outright heresy, then does that not make him a heretic? Inanimate objects do not say and or write things- people do. The last time I looked, Francis is a person, not an object.
I pray for his immortal soul, but I can no longer defend him.
One is not a heretic unless one “contumaciously” professes heretical propositions.
Whatever that means in practice, eventually, with respect to a Pope, it certainly excludes calling a Pope a “heretic” immediately upon his publication of propositions that appear to be heretical.
Good point. However, it is becoming more than apparent that Francis will not retract one word of anything heretical he has either spoken or written.
And you are right on the money with that.
He won’t. He is committed to this cause. He will lecture and ridicule those who put forth this petition. He will throw a hissy fit like he did the last time people asked him to be faithful to the teaching of the Church.
And then he will ” tranquilize them and put them to the side”. He’s already said that that is what he intends to do to those who disagrees with them.
At least we have his word that he won’t “behead” them.
He has admitted that “I am by nature irresponsible” @pontifexeponymouseflower.blogspot.com, so why is he holding the Papal Office?
Once they are implemented they must become so.
I think if he doesn’t retract certain statements that seem heretical that he is
remaining contumacious ergo…a heretic.
Remember that this slippery serpent has a get-out clause if he needs it – he is on record already as admitting that he doesn’t read everything he signs. If credible charges of heresy start being slung around, he can easily fall back to: “It wasn’t heresy, it was just carelessnees that I didn’t read it all before I signed it.”
However, good Deacon, it is his RESPONSIBILITY as Supreme Pontiff and Universal Pastor the Roman Catholic Church to uphold Tradition and Sacred Scripture (Deposit of Faith). If he will not do at least that, then he ceases to remain pope and loses his office and the associated graces. Of course, I am a mere layman. I also know that the proper ecclesiastical authority in the Church must make this determination. It might not happen in my lifetime. But it eventually will.
Absolutely I agree that those are his responsibilities. But he doesn’t appear to give a rat’s a$$ about his responsibilities. He appears to be intent on tearing the Church down and nullifying the Deposit of Faith and the Sacraments. If somebody tries to get him on a charge of latae sententiae excommunication for pertinaceously adhering to a heresy, do you not think that he is capable of changing the Code of Canon Law to remove the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication?
He has already changed the Code to abolish the presumption in favour of validity in the case of marriage. If he can wield his power so recklessly, I don’t think anything is beneath him.
Even if he changed Canon Law as you say, it would always remain an invalid change as he would act under false pretenses to cover his heresies. No law- ecclesiastical or otherwise- can change the Deposit of Faith given us by Christ and passed on by his Apostles.
That excuse wouldn’t stand up in a court of law. You must read everything through before you add your signature. if he tries to implicate others they may start of squeal.
Which doesn’t look very good either?
What do you meant I gave away all the contents of the Varican Museum? I don’t remember signing that?
But this gives him a chance to correct or to affirm. On record before the guys with red hats. I think it’s inconceivable that he backs away.
Then, his escape is blocked.
Where can that text be found?
Which text? If you refer to a post on 1Peter5 I made a couple of days ago, I can re-post if the moderator will allow it (the Italian into English translation from “From Rome”). It is quite lengthy.
It is posted under “The Four Marks of the Church.”
I assumed you meant the text containing the list of erroneous propositions that is being sent to the Cardinals. I would like to ask my bishop to sign it.
How does one defend the indefensible?
Wuerl says only ‘very few’ are unhappy with Pope Francis.
That’s easy to explain. Wuerl lives in Washington DC which is aka 50 square miles surrounded by reality.
Perhaps he meant only the faithful are unhappy with Francis. Every clown is for him.
I wondered exactly that too. Why not? I settled the question (in my own mind) imagining that this way he can back out or dig in (which he will undoubtedly do) and THEN, after affirming it, he can be definitively associated with his heresy.
Al, I found the English version (not a Google translate): https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/libellus-of-condemned-errors-regarding-amoris-laetitia/
Thanks! When I initially found it last week, they only published it in Italian.
I recall reading on a Catholic news website that the idea of the hierarchy was to develop “work arounds” so that they could say that they didn’t change doctrine. In other words, they were “clever” and changed “Yes or No” to confusion and ambiguity so what was written couldn’t directly be called changing the faith from what Jesus intended it to be
Yes. But the “workarounds” will eventually come back to bite them- if not in this life, then, most certainly in the next. These unfaithful prelates will not mock God forever.
“Do not hide your faith and your beliefs under a bushel basket, particularly now in a world that has gone mad.” – Justice Clarence Thomas ( Supreme Court Justice USA)
Let each cardinal be put on notice from this day on, that if he fails to openly support the urgent need to clarify the ambiguity in the AL, which knowingly is promoting bishops to lead their sheep into grave mortal sin, let this lack of action be called an anathema!
In gratitude to Dr. Shaw and those who have signed this excellent statement. May God bless them and protect them.
May the Holy Spirit guide our cardinals and faithful laity who are in leadership positions to defend the faith and Holy Mother Church. And that would include you Steve and many of our Catholic journalists. God be with you.
These folks and their request are way out of order. They need to read and heed the latest interview given by Cardinal Schonborn. He explains clearly and correctly that Amoris Laetitia as an apostolic exhortation is now the official teaching through which to interpret earlier teaching, as Chalcedon is the teaching through which to understand Nicea, and not vice versa. Development of doctrine, folks. Open your eyes.
Schonborn is wrong. His opinions are frequently questionable.
My dear, his opinions are not even opinions. He explains the facts of the case, clearly and correctly. He serves on the CDF as well.
He is wrong. Church teaching must be read in continuity forward not backward. This gay affirming Cardinal does not know his stuff.
One could say “he knows it backwards and forwards”, but I’m not sure he knows the forwards part.
Look, friend, Cardinal Schonborn is in fact precisely correct! After Chalcedon in 451, one is bound to reject any reading of Nicea (from 325) that denies the nature of Jesus that is fully human or any reading that proposes to envision his human nature as changed by or mixed with his divine nature. Doctrine develops, it is not stagnant. Apostolic exhortations teach. Try looking for the joy in our life in Christ. I pray you find it!
Yes, CJM, future magisterial statements can clarify past magisterial statements, as your example above, and our understanding of doctrine can develop and deepen. BUT (and this is a BIG “but”) future magisterial statements cannot contradict past magisterial statements, nor can we come to understand doctrine contrary to what the Church has always taught in the past. This, CJM, is the problem with Cardinal Schonborn’s statement.
Firstly, a synodal exhortation is not equivalent to a council.
A synodal exhortation is even less than an Encyclical.
Nicea never ever proposed any understanding of Jesus that denied Jesus’s full humanity.
A council cannot contradict the doctrine of a previous council.
Francis is teaching heresy.
As for Joy in Christ? Joy in Christ is not found in the easy life. It is found in sacrifice, in suffering. That thing that the Pope wants you to avoid.
What you are after is comfort and easy morals. That is not where you will find Christ and His joy. That is what the evil one will have you choose.
Except AL does not contradict earlier teaching. Development, friend. Watch the YouTube that Barron has made about AL and learn something. … The joy in Christ of sacrificing your condemnations of others (what assumptions have you made about my life?) and learning some Francis-like and Christ-like tenderness instead is sacrifice I highly recommend. The measure you give you will get. Fear for your salvation and repent before it is too late (as we all must each day).
Oh CJM, it sure does contradict earlier teaching. It is not a development. It is a corruption.
Yes, I did watch Barron. And I call him and all those who think that AL is okay “ostritches”.
They burry their heads in the sand. They go on and on as to how Amoris says something right but never, ever addressed the problems that theologians, philisophers, priests and bishops have raised.
The day that Fr Barron et al actually refute all these arguments , is the day they become credible vis a vis Amoris.
Francis-like is not necessarily Christ-like.
Francis-like can be un-Christ-like because Christ says take up your cross and follow me, Francis says no that’s too hard, what you are doing is not sin, it’s okay keep doing it as the alternative is too difficult.
Repent? Are you kidding. That is exactly what Francis says you do not need to do. Your sin is okay. Adultery is only something irregular. If disobeying the 6th commandment is only something irregular, then all sins are merely irregularities. There is no need to repent.
In fact, this “year of Mercy” is all hogwash considering if all we do is merely irregular, then what do we need Mercy for?
Exactly. I guess with Francis, the mortal sin of Presumption is also gone. No more need for Confession. My, oh my, all Protestants should jump for joy.
“tenderness”
If you use “concrete” and “accompany” in your next post I win this round of Novus Ordo Buzzword Bingo.
Love your humor.
The principle of non-contradiction stands, as grace perfects nature, it doesn’t abolish it. Development of doctrine means uncovering more explicitly what is ALREADY there implicitly; it does not mean declaring that sometimes, in given circumstances, doing grave (or non-grave!) evil is ok!
“learning some Francis-like and Christ-like tenderness instead is sacrifice I highly recommend.”
Why is it that when one debates these issues, and has great concern regarding AL, he or she is looked upon as somehow not having the tenderness for those who seem to have a greater need of God’s mercy?
How do you judge this? Does Pope Francis globalize and judge as you seem to as well? I think I know the answer to that.
The devil is a great seducer. The joy in Christ is His Truth. Each man and woman is capable of knowing and living that Truth. Do you think God would create a child of His otherwise?
God knows all things. What He spoke then, He knew would be true now as it was then. Why can we not trust that? Why does man have to use that God given intellectual brain of his so much so as to plan, manipulate things so as to ” show the joy in Christ”.
Perhaps the next exhortation could be called, ” The Joy of Virtue.”
Without virtue, there can be no real joy in Christ. It is but an empty shell.
Our selfish nature makes virtue impossible. This is where God’s graces along with caring love of the Church and Her Body make all things possible.
Doctrine develops, yes. But it does not reverse.
Actually doctrine and dogma do not develop. Our understanding of doctrine
and dogma deepens .
I believe you are both correct
What is gained from your hateful condescension and supporting the overthrow of 2000 years of the Church maintaining the teachings of Christ and His apostles?
I can only imagine very temporary worldly advantages that contrast starkly with far more significant disadvantageous consequences.
Look up “Moderism” in Websters and his picture is next to it.
Whatever he says…do the opposite if one values their soul.
No error is binding on a Catholic and any faithful catholic ought to reject and repudiate any erroneous and foreign teaching, just like your body would sneeze out germs or reject a foreign organ it does not recognize, and the Church is a body, His Body.
*
If you are catholic and were at an OF Mass yesterday:
Good point, good quote!
He wishes. It is not and never will be binding. The church cannot bind anyone to heresy.
Spite. That’s what I see in this empty taunt. And why? Spite is engendered by fear. That is very reassuring.
Do you realize that this diatribe is entirely limited to the emotional spectrum of Hell?
Schonborn meant it is binding Sikh doctrine, not binding Catholic doctrine.
About time!
Is there an avenue by which we [the lay faithful] might sign onto this petition to the Holy Father?
I belive the petition has already been sent. From RORATE CÆLI [http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/07/catholic-academics-and-pastors-appeal.html] you could send an inquiry to: [email protected]
Our friends at the Remnant also have an online petition asking Francis to either clarify his “teachings” or else resign. You can sign it on their website.
Let us hope and pray something good comes from this effort. There is a new lay guy in charge of PR in the Vatican who happens to be a member of ‘Opus Dei’, so presumably orthodox. I wonder how he will handle this matter.
I’m afraid the problem is this quote: “We are not accusing the pope of heresy,” said a spokesman…”
The delicate academic and theological dance we are witnessing speaks to fear, I fear. I could be very wrong, but I believe we are far past trying to cajole Pope Francis to do the right thing in the interests of humanity, the Church, good will, what have you. Heads will roll, figuratively if not literally at some point. What will fix this is the Truth. And those who have much to lose must speak clearly on the matter. We need men with chests.
There is a meaningful difference between someone who is a heretic and someone who has made heretical statements. In order to ever prove that someone is a heretic, that person must be confronted first with their heretical statements. Only when the confronted person persists in their heretical statements after being confronted with the errors can the person be properly called a heretic.
Oh sorry. I didn’t realize that Pope Francis had been left to go on his merry way without a word. I suppose you need to be present when someone (anyone) confronts him, eh?
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.
I believe Pope Francis has been ‘confronted’ publicly about his statements by numerous individuals and groups. He stands by them through refusing to clarify or correct and by hiding behind his team and allowing them to take any heat. This stuff does not require advanced philosophy and theology degrees. It requires the common sense of people of good will and faith. The fear that comes with making an idol of the pope is typical of having a false god. One fears their idol to the point of absurdity. Not saying you have that problem. Just saying that there is no end to the self-deception, both individually and collectively of people who make an idol of the papacy. It truly is a phenomenon that I always thought was a lie perpetrated by Protestants.
Exactly so.
He has not been confronted, though. The confrontation is a formal process, not the publication of internet articles detailing the errors.
And it does require some level of theological knowledge because the confrontation involves putting the purported erroneous statement next to the Church’s doctrine in order to show that there is an error in the former when compared to the latter.
But note that we are here talking about the formal process. You and I have already taken note that many of the pope’s statements are erroneous. All I’m saying here is that there is a need for a formal process in order to actually say that someone is a heretic.
Ok. We’re quibbling a bit. The bishops have not put him on ‘trial’. We will all just be in willful denial that until he is publicly confronted through the proper process that he is not a heretic. Because goodness knows, the bishops are all men of good faith, willing to lay down their lives for Christ and Holy Mother Church….
(NOTE: I’m no expert in canon law, so take everything below with a grain of salt.)
What Marc is talking about is laid out in the 1917 Code of Canon Law under Title XI: Crimes against Faith and Unity, Canon 2314 §1.2.
Furthermore, Canon 1325 §2 defines that the obstinancy of a heretic must be established. In his Commentary on the Code, Fr. P. C. Augustine notes:
I think we are speaking of two different things, really. It is up to the bishops to formally determine if the Pope is a heretic. However, I have a brain. God has formed me as a Catholic. Based on my understanding (as much as I know the Magisterium and have a well-formed conscience) the Pope is a heretic. His statements are heretical to the point of scandal with a capital S. He has not backed down from them, indeed, has doubled down. If it was anyone but the Pope I imagine quite a few trads would be calling him a heretic, no problem.
Yes, we are talking about two different things, i.e. material vs. formal error and/or heresy. All the traditional Catholics I know have come to terms with the material component of the Pope’s errors. What we’re focused on is the formal component, as that’s the one that carries juridical weight. I don’t know if the signatories to the document reported above have it in mind, but if they wanted to eventually prove pertinacity, such a document would be the first step in the process.
He was already confronted on the plane with a reporter. Francis said that what Cardinal Schonborn said is the final word. So, that sounds like Francis’ final answer. What more do we need?
The Church does the confronting, not reporters on airplanes.
It does not really matter at this point. Francis has spoken. So let it be written, so let it be done. His spokesman, Cardinals Schonborn, Kasper, etal. have spoken for him. Francis did say their word was the FINAL word.
That’s one approach, but it’s not the approach that St. Paul recommends. “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.”
There is a requirement of pertinacity involved with heresy. In order to know that someone is pertinacious, he must be confronted with his statement and with the Truth that his statement contradicts. If he remains obstinate in his error after being admonished with the truth, then the matter is proven.
So what is your solution?
I think that this article suggests the proper course of action. This is a request that the college of cardinals confront the pope with his errors to determine whether he is pertinacious.
And if they do not? I mean, the question is worth asking and answering. It seems that, by my count, only about one dozen bishops (including cardinals) are challenging Francis already. It does NOT appear (yet) that at least a majority of cardinals (say 50 or so) will not say or do anything.
If they do not, then we continue keeping the faith and praying for the conversion of the pope, cardinals, and bishops. And we hope for a time of future sanity where the errors of today are condemned forthrightly.
The problem, however, is that the Catholic church is rapidly deteriorating into formal schism. Francis seems not to give a damn about it nor those he is placing into positions of power. A pope CANNOT do this without severe, dire consequences to the faithful, and to his soul.
It’s definitely a problem. But the solution to confusion in the Church is not for every individual Catholic to determine who is and who is not a heretic.
It’s painful to see it all happening. I agree with you on that.
Every individual Catholic has the right and even the duty to determine, in accordance with a well-formed conscience and the Magisterium, truth. That many do not have a well-formed conscience and are ignorant of the Magisterium, does not negate the right and duty. It is up to the bishops to formally determine if Pope Francis is a heretic. Agreed. However, please do not try to take away from the man in the pews his right to determine truth.
A final word on what, exactly? And no, Pope Francis doesn’t necessarily have the final word. An Apostolic Exhortation does not negate 2000 years of magisterial teachings. If you doubt me, then read this:
“The 1983 Code of Canon Law states that “According to the knowledge, competence, and expertise which they possess, they [the Christian faithful]have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful” (CIC, can. 212 §3)”
The citation was from the theologians letter itself.
I do not doubt you. However, Francis seems hellbent on changing pastoral practice. This is the modus operandi of Modernists (liberals or progressives, if you prefer). Changing pastoral practice as well as words and their meanings IS tantamount to changing Church doctrine/dogma. This is the diabolical disorientation our Blessed Mother spoke.
Even though doctrine/dogma will NEVER change, we simply cannot ignore a pope and his minions who would lead the flock astray.
Francis is well aware of the standards for heresy, and one of the reasons he is so vague is to avoid saying any concrete phrase that would enable confrontation. He leaves the more specific statements to his minions, and I honestly can’t see why some of them aren’t being confronted over their stances. But of course the question is who exactly is going to do the “confronting” of these people. Every day there are fewer orthodox bishops (to say nothing of cardinals) as Francis retires or removes or simply marginalizes them.
It would be good to know who these so called “academics and pastors” are.
“We are not accusing the pope of heresy.”
No, of course not.
Who would even think such a thing?
Why even say that?
Unless, in a way, they were accusing the pope of heresy.
I find it difficult to “in a way” to accuse anyone of heresy. The theologians simply cut-off any accusations at the pass. A different tack from the theologians who critiqued Humanae Vitae.
I tweeted this to Archbishop Cupich, thought he might want to know….I am so grateful that this is happening. Thank You Lord Jesus Christ!
One of the reasons the Synod of Pistoia was condemned for heresy was because it used ambiguous language.
My how things have changed….
But if there’s no rule of law (Hillary White, thank you) at the Vatican what difference does it make? Look at how they’re treating Cardinal Sarah over what amounts to basically nothing but following the actual rules. They can ignore us forever.
I watched an interview from Church Militant recently with Bishop Gracida wherein he said people have to call them out, literally saying “No! You’re wrong!”. It’s they way heresies have been shut down.
I’m a faithful Catholic, I really really try to follow the rules and then some. I love Jesus with my heart mind and soul. But none of that can hide the fact that they’ve been infiltrated in some way and the idea that the Pope, and he IS the Pope, can publish an exhortation like that, in my opinion, proves it.
Mary, St Augustine, St Anthony, St John the Baptist, everyone, Pray for us!
Pray for the Pope! That his eyes and heart may be opened.