Cardinals Join Battle With Pope Franciseditor
Cardinal Burke on Amoris Laetitia Dubia: ‘Tremendous Division’ Warrants Action
Posted by Edward Pentin on Tuesday Nov 15th, 2016 at 11:25 AM
In an exclusive Register interview, [Cardinal Burke] elaborates about why four cardinals were impelled to seek clarity about the papal exhortation’s controversial elements.
Four cardinals asked Pope Francis five dubia questions, or “doubts,” about the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) in a bid to clear up ambiguities and confusion surrounding the text. On Nov. 14, they went public with their request, after they learned that the Holy Father had decided not to respond to their questions.
In this exclusive interview with the Register, Cardinal Raymond Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, explains in more detail the cardinals’ aims; why the publication of their letter should be seen as an act of charity, unity and pastoral concern, rather than as a political action; and what the next steps will be, if the Holy Father continues to refuse to respond.
Your Eminence, what do you aim to achieve by this initiative?
Are you hearing this concern about confusion a lot?
Everywhere I go I hear it. Priests are divided from one another, priests from bishops, bishops among themselves. There’s a tremendous division that has set in in the Church, and that is not the way of the Church. That is why we settle on these fundamental moral questions which unify us.
Why is Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia of such particular concern?
Because it has been the font of all of these confused discussions. Even diocesan directives are confused and in error. We have one set of directives in one diocese; for instance, saying that priests are free in the confessional, if they judge it necessary, to permit a person who is living in an adulterous union and continues to do so to have access to the sacraments — whereas, in another diocese, in accord with what the Church’s practice has always been, a priest is able to grant such permission to those who make the firm purpose of amendment to live chastely within a marriage, namely as brother and sister, and to only receive the sacraments in a place where there would be no question of scandal. This really has to be addressed. But then there are the further questions in the dubia apart from that particular question of the divorced and remarried, which deal with the term “instrinsic evil,” with the state of sin and with the correct notion of conscience.
Without the clarification you are seeking, are you saying, therefore, that this and other teaching in Amoris Laetitia go against the law of non-contradiction (which states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time when dealing with the same context)?
Of course, because, for instance, if you take the marriage issue, the Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble, in accord with the word of Christ, “He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Therefore, if you are divorced, you may not enter a marital relationship with another person unless the indissoluble bond to which you are bound is declared to be null, to be nonexistent. But if we say, well, in certain cases, a person living in an irregular marriage union can receive holy Communion, then one of two things has to be the case: Either marriage really is not indissoluble — as for instance, in the kind of “enlightenment theory” of Cardinal [Walter] Kasper, who holds that marriage is an ideal to which we cannot realistically hold people. In such a case, we have lost the sense of the grace of the sacrament, which enables the married to live the truth of their marriage covenant — or holy Communion is not communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course, neither of those two is possible. They contradict the constant teachings of the Church from the beginning and, therefore, cannot be true.
Some will see this initiative through a political lens and criticize it as a “conservative vs. liberal” move, something you and the other signatories reject. What is your response to such an accusation?
Our response is simply this: We are not taking some kind of position within the Church, like a political decision, for instance. The Pharisees accused Jesus of coming down on one side of a debate between the experts in Jewish Law, but Jesus did not do that at all. He appealed to the order that God placed in nature from the moment of creation. He said Moses let you divorce because of your hardness of heart, but it was not this way from the beginning. So we are simply setting forth what the Church has always taught and practiced in asking these five questions that address the Church’s constant teaching and practice. The answers to these questions provide an essential interpretative tool for Amoris Laetitia. They have to be set forth publicly because so many people are saying: “We’re confused, and we don’t understand why the cardinals or someone in authority doesn’t speak up and help us.”
It’s a pastoral duty?
That’s right, and I can assure you that I know all of the cardinals involved, and this has been something we’ve undertaken with the greatest sense of our responsibility as bishops and cardinals. But it has also been undertaken with the greatest respect for the Petrine Office, because if the Petrine Office does not uphold these fundamental principles of doctrine and discipline, then, practically speaking, division has entered into the Church, which is contrary to our very nature.
And the Petrine ministry, too, whose primary purpose is unity?
Yes, as the Second Vatican Council says, the Pope is the foundation of the unity of the bishops and of all the faithful. This idea, for instance, that the Pope should be some kind of innovator, who is leading a revolution in the Church or something similar, is completely foreign to the Office of Peter. The Pope is a great servant of the truths of the faith, as they’ve been handed down in an unbroken line from the time of the apostles.
Is this why you emphasize that what you are doing is an act of charity and justice?
Absolutely. We have this responsibility before the people for whom we are bishops, and an even greater responsibility as cardinals, who are the chief advisers to the Pope. For us to remain silent about these fundamental doubts, which have arisen as a result of the text of Amoris Laetitia, would, on our part, be a grave lack of charity toward the Pope and a grave lack in fulfilling the duties of our own office in the Church.
Some might argue that you are only four cardinals, among whom you’re the only one who is not retired, and this is not very representative of the entire Church. In that case, they might ask: Why should the Pope listen and respond to you?
Well, numbers aren’t the issue. The issue is the truth. In the trial of St. Thomas More, someone told him that most of the English bishops had accepted the king’s order, but he said that may be true, but the saints in heaven did not accept it. That’s the point here. I would think that even though other cardinals did not sign this, they would share the same concern. But that doesn’t bother me. Even if we were one, two or three, if it’s a question of something that’s true and is essential to the salvation of souls, then it needs to be said.
What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?
Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.
In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?
What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”
If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.
Some commentators may argue that the Cardinals’ action will have little to no effect, that things will continue apace. But IS this an historic moment in the life of the Church? Might this conscientious challenge by the four Cardinals, mark a turning point in the current, worsening crisis? What about the papolatrists? How do they reconcile their false belief that the pope – any pope – is beyond criticism, with the impending public correction of Pope Francis by a number of Princes of the Church? How do they square that circle? Maybe we should ask Michael Voris!
I don’t think that this intervention–which is worthy of shepherds motivated by the supreme law of the Church which is the good of souls–will have the desired effect, at least not in the short term.
At the same time, however, it is useful in several ways. Firstly, it shows Francis up for what he is. He, like the rest of us, knows that it is extremely impolite not to reply to a letter, but he also knows that if the five ‘dubia’ have been constructed in such a way that if he replies to them, he is effectively toast. He cannot answer, because he has no answer unless it is to stick two fingers up at the Magisterium of his predecessors. This may be lost on the mainstream mass media, but it will not be lost on the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church.
Second, that Amoris Laetitia has been shown to be ambiguous and incoherent, not to say illogical, is a good thing because it will do nothing to enhance Francis’ reputation within the Church where already he is hardly regarded as a towering intellectual.
The mainstream media will ridicule this intervention by Cardinal Burke et al., but that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that Francis has been shown to able to advance only by the jackboot and never by the brain. And that will be good news for his successor who is going to have a little tidying up to do.
“Well said” seems to be the understatement of the year right now!
You have just about said it all there – explaining perfectly why Pope Francis has not answered the Cardinals’ letter.
We now await, with bated breath, for the next step in the Cardinals’ brave initiative.
I am really pleased that the four cardinals have taken this step. It was just too wearing reading the reports day after day about this pope. At least now, there is evidence that top cardinals see the problem.
It’s a disgrace that the pope has not answered their letter but as Prognostium says, “he cannot answer” – that speaks for itself.
“On Nov. 14, they went public with their request, after they learned that the Holy Father had decided not to respond to their questions.”
That reminds me of the “courtesy” discussion on here recently. How terrible that a pope should be so bad mannered as to ignore such an important letter from princes of the Church. So much for all the talk of his “humility” – I don’t think so.
I am really looking forward to the next step. A public correction would be hugely significant and humiliating for the pope. Maybe then he will see sense. It will also demonstrate the activity of the Holy Spirit in the Church. It’s all well and good to say a future pope and Council will declare on this pope and I get it, that there is no earthly authority that can depose him, I really do get that, but it is good to see that there is a way that his errors can be publicly corrected while he is still alive. That seems just, giving him the chance to recant.
“A public correction would be hugely significant and humiliating for the pope.”
Maybe that’s just what he needs – to be humiliated!
Given the gravity of this situation, perhaps we should start calling them the “Four Cardinals of the Apocalypse.”
So much for collegiality.
I`ll answer your letter if you let me dictate it an you pay the postage.
Does anybody know what form the public correction will take?
My guess is that the public correction, if it comes, can only be in some written form – another letter for him to ignore, LOL!
That wouldn’t matter because the media would pick it up and he would be interviewed around the world, so Pope Francis would definitely get the message and the embarrassment might help shove him in the right direction.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for him! St Michael, Archangel, defend us in this day of battle!
The indefatigable Christopher Ferrara at the Remnant Newspaper has commented on this news, and it is significant because he was one of a few American traditionalist journalists who would not say a bad word about this pope for quite a while after his election. The light has dawned, DG:
“For the past three-and-a-half years we have witnessed the bizarre, completely unprecedented spectacle of a wayward Roman Pontiff engaged in clever maneuvering to impose upon the Church a disastrous fracturing of her bimillenial moral and Eucharistic discipline respecting the divorced and “remarried”—and, even worse, via Amoris Laetitia (especially Ch. 8, ¶¶ 300-305), a form of situation ethics that would institutionalize admission to the sacraments of all manner of people living habitually in situations that are mortally sinful.
The entire sinister program, the centerpiece of Bergoglianism, is summed up in Francis’ shocking declaration at ¶ 303 of Amoris:
Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.
Francis here reveals nothing less than an insane attempt to conjure up exceptions to exceptionless, divinely imposed negative precepts of the natural law respecting intrinsically immoral conduct, such as adultery, reducing those precepts to mere “ideals” to which God does not expect strict conformity “amid the complexity of one’s limits.” This, of course, would represent the total destruction of the moral order in practice.”
I couldn’t agree more. “Conjuring up exceptions to exceptionless divinely imposed negative precepts of the natural law” sums up Pope Francis to-a-T.
My question is this: will Pope Benedict lend his support to the public correction, if it comes?
Here’s the SSPX US response to the Cardinals’ letter, explaining that the sending of “dubia” (doubts) to Rome is a longstanding method of eliciting a “yes” or “no” response to questions of doubt, without any theological argumentation.
I can’t help adding that the four ignored Cardinals are in good (enough!) company – I once sent a dubium to Rome, and I, too, was ignored. This was a fair bit before Amoris Laetita and my question was on the subject of whether those in cohabiting relationships were permitted to approach for Holy Communion… !
Dear Madame Editor,
+ Archbishop Lefebvre (eternal memory!) once sent the CDF dubia re religious liberty. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger answered some and left others unanswered.
Eventually, these were published in book form by Angelus Press (www.angeluspress.com) under the title Religious Liberty Questioned: Archbishop Lefebvre ‘s Objections to Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty ISBN 0-892331-12-8
In Christ the King,
Thank you for that, Margaret. Another addition to my “must-read” list.
I’d love to know which dubia remained unanswered. That would be very telling indeed, since I can’t imagine the Archbishop asking anything that could be classed as unnecessary.
Here’s a very interesting article from today’s akacatholic.com
One would hope that if and when Francis declares himself an antipope, whether explicitly or by silence, formal steps will then be undertaken to elect a new pope.
If Francis is an antipope, and Benedict is still alive, can we really say that the Petrine ministry is unmanned?
END OF EXTRACT.
Maybe, just maybe, the author would find the answer if he were to apply Occam’s Razor
What a mess – and all because of V2. Personally, I hope that if Francis is removed, a NEW Holy Father will cleanse the Church of all commies, deviants, freaks, Freemasons and perverts. The consecration of Russia would seem to be the most appropriate method.
Mater Misericordiae, ora pro nobis.
I’m not a fan of Louis V and his website, whatever it’s called now. I have seldom visited it and can’t remember the last time I did, so forgive me if I pass on visiting your link on this occasion. The extracts are quite sufficient for the day thereof!
I really can’t take anyone seriously who speaks about “antipopes” and who thinks Benedict is still the pope when he manifestly is not. These people are just as much a part of the problem as Pope Francis.
Anyway, here’s the latest – Pope Francis has cancelled his meeting with the Cardinals planned for Saturday.
As the above report concludes, the speculation is that the Holy Father has cancelled his meeting (consistory) with the cardinals in order to avoid discussing the dubia and his decision about it, AND/OR to prevent having the dubia about AL presented to him in person.
Dear Madame Editor,
I see that you’re planning to shut down CT for Advent. Given the Cardinals’ intervention, could you please consider posting a blog if something happens that’s really newsworthy (e.g. a second public admonition)?
I don’t want to ruin your Advent, but CT is growing on me, and I don’t want to forget you! I look at the Remnant, Catholic Family News, and other TC blogs as well as CT.
In Christ the King,
P.S. When will you be back – after Christmas or New Year’s? I’m missing you already!
Yes, I meant to say that if there is something huge, we will, of course, publish a thread on that during Advent. If things are very active at the beginning of Advent, we will either open a particular thread or leave this one open.
We will re-open on Christmas day.
Delighted CT is “growing” on you. I only wish the Pope would say the same. I was once told (however reliably I’m not really sure) that he was seen looking at our hard copy front page without comment, non-committal facial expression. Well, it’s a start!
If I may make a suggestion, please be careful about The Remnant website. Despite the excellence of many of their articles (esp. Mr. Ferrara) there is a lot of poorly informed pontificating going on down in the commboxes. Moreover, they are still giving column space to Hilary White, who, in her recent report from Norcia, declared that the current lot in control of the Vatican were all “going to perdition,” and also implied that we faithful should just forget about the Church and keep the Faith at home. The Remnant not only didn’t vet these comments, they had the poor judgment to repeat the “perdition” comment in bold, atop the article.
(I objected to both her statements in a comment, and her first comment was actually defended by one of the pontificators – who, as it turns out, has previously stated that he doesn’t trust Bp. Fellay, but admires Bp. Williamson! See what I mean?)
Thanks RCA. You join me in criticising the Remnant. It is far too loose in some ways and bans those who offer more balanced comments while leaving untouched other stuff, including (a year or so ago) explicitly neo-Nazi comments against the Jews.
Basically, if you’re able to praise Michael Matt as some sort of godlike guru (and by the way, he is a fine writer himself, only becoming unglued on occasion) then all is okay: any questioning of anything and you’re out.
That is all very interesting indeed. I didn’t know the half of it.
What I DO know of course, is that Hilary White is not to be trusted (she cost me the price of an erratum slip to accompany our November hard copy newsletter, after I quoted a misleading remark from her blog) and the other thing I know about her which makes her suspect is that she dismisses Fatima. I couldn’t believe it. I think it was during that exchange that she first called me “that nutjob from Scotland”
Now, instead of recommending a traditional chapel, she recommends staying at home. I’ve no idea whether she approves of the SSPX or not. Do you know?
No information on her position regarding the SSPX, but if I come across something, you’ll be the second to know!!
I’ll settle for that! Cheeky!
Just googled “Hilary White SSPX” and this came up from September: http://www.onepeterfive.com/hilary-white-sums-latest-sspx-developments/ (notice the typical insulting language, used against Bp. Fellay).
And here’s a reaction to her article: https://priestshavebecomecesspoolsofimpurity.blogspot.com/2016/09/hilary-white-accuses-bishop-fellay-of.html
(Caveat: don’t know anything about this blog…)
Editor and Gerontius,
I stopped reading Louie’s blog early this year. I couldn’t quite put my finger on what was bothering me about it, but there was something overly pedantic about his thought process, and he also tossed around insults a bit too gratuitously – i.e. he seems to constantly let his anger get the better of him.
Louie provides a very interesting article today:
Dubia: On judging, competency and more
It’s not an interesting article. At least, I’ll never know because I stopped reading at “he is an antipope.”
Thanks, Louie whatsyourname, but – not being a numpty, so to speak- I prefer to await the judgment of the proper authorities on that matter, please and thank you…
This is definitely a historical moment. Not since the High Middle Ages has a Pope been challenged on his orthodoxy.
And I say: bring it on. There has been an effective schism in the Church for the past fifty years, and now we see it coming explicitly formal.
All this is part of the separation of the sheep and the goats which many of us have been conscious of for some years. We need clarity and these four Cardinals may well be providing it.
The sadness of course is that there are only four of them, but apparently the climate of fear in Rome has stopped others joining them.
It really is truly historic. We are actually privileged to be living through this, giving us an unprecedented opportunity to affirm our Catholic Faith – by the very act of correcting Pope Francis, the four brave cardinals are testifying to the work of the Holy Ghost in preserving the Church from error. I just cannot understand why so many Catholics cannot see this.
There will be those who, like those immature “ladies who lunch” prefer to “keep up appearances” and pretend there’s no problem. You guessed; I’ve just paid a flying visit to Auntie Joanna (Bogle’s) blog and there she is, in full flight, writing about standing in London, cheery red buses passing by blah blah, as she journeys to a meeting of writers. A picture of Pope Francis in the top right hand corner with a caption welcoming the “new” pope. Presumably, she’s chosen to NOT report his scandalous words and actions since his election, because glossing over them would be hard work even for her good self.
So, let’s thank God for the grace to see the truth and to remain steadfast in the Faith, while praying that the Cardinals’ intervention bears the desired good fruit – soon.
I’m just a bit confused. Have you not been saying that we have to accept Pope Francis as lawful pope, and just wait until a future Council pronounces judgment on him? I would have thought you disapproved of the Cardinals’ letter. I must be thick or something!
Its precisely because Francis is the lawful Pope that these Cardinals are sending him the letter. If he were already adjudged as an antipope then there would be no point asking him anything in the first place.
Of course, it is possible that he will be judged to be an antipope in the future. But most of those judgements tend to take place posthumously.
Excellent points. Spot on. If he were NOT the Pope, then there would be no point in going through the “correction” process. Well said.
I’m sure someone asked a similar question on another thread, so allow me to clarify. I don’t think you are “thick” – you’re simply not understanding the key issue, and confusing issues, with all due respect.
From the very first publication of our newsletter, we have lamented the failure of bishops to speak out against dissent. We have been repeatedly disappointed when they failed to do so.
Since the election of Papa Francis, we have been disappointed in our own bishops who have gone along with his every word and action. That’s no surprise to us, of course, since we have long believed them – the Scots bishops and probably most of the rest of the UK bishops – to be apostates.
Far from disapproving of the letter, we recall our previous praise for Cardinal Burke and others at the Synod on the Family who refused to give their blessing to the new moral law, where adultery was a forbidden word but not a forbidden vice. Only a few days or so before the news broke of the letter currently under discussion, I posted a remark to the effect that it was disappointing that the previously outspoken Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider et al, had apparently gone to ground. I’m sure I used those very words. Thus, I was and remain delighted that they have submitted dubia about Amoris Laetita – a very clever and imaginative way of highlighting the heresies therein. And if Pope Francis were genuinely in ignorance of the manifest danger which this exhortation represents, he would be grateful and see those dubia as the proverbial straw for the purposes of clutching, frantically, to get him out of a very tricky mess!
I think you may be confusing our insistence that no unauthorised person (and that includes the current crop of Benevacantists, ordained and lay) can decide that Pope Francis is not the pope, or that he is an antipope etc. That’s a very different matter.
I hope this is all clear. Let me know if not, and I’ll try again. That’s one thing nobody can say about me, that I’m not trying. I’m told, in fact, that I’m VERY trying 😀
Nicky, this letter from the Cardinals may be the first stage of a process that leads to a future Council pronouncing judgment on him. do you see now?
“We are actually privileged to be living through this.”
I agree completely.
Bergoglio’s reaction today condemns him further: he appears to be saying there is no objective truth at all, rather only “process” and “evolution”.
All classical Modernism, a condemned heresy.
Francis’ minions have, once again, revealed their true nature and intellectual rigour by throwing insults about amid this unusual situation.
Fr Antonio Spadaro, a Francis-puppet, tweeted a movie screenshot to imply that Cardinal Burke is a “witless worm”. He later deleted the tweet from his account. But not before some blogs managed to take screen-shots, see here:
This standard of conduct from the clergy, especially from those close to the Pope, is frankly a disgrace.
Sadly, however, it is the Pope himself who has set the standard of behaviour with his petulance and his aggression towards those who do not agree with him. Such humility indeed.
That attack on Cardinal Burke is an outright disgrace. Thank you for alerting us to the reports, and for your own “spot-on” commentary.
It is telling that they cannot respond to the arguments and so they are reduced to ad hominems. This is the sign of desperate men indeed.
Frankenpope has also been spouting directly as taken from CH today:
“He said that responses to Amoris Laetitia exemplified this, and that some people thought issues were “black and white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern”.
The Pope added: “The Council told us this, but historians say that a century needs to pass before a Council is properly assimilated into the body of the Church… we are half way.””
Oh how effin predictable!!! It wuz der Council wot told us dat nuffin wuz black’n’white any more. How cud we of misst dat?
I would love to see him try to cite the words of the Council which support his statement. I think he is probably dredging up that old “spirit of the Council” phantom again.
I opened a Twitter account the other day, just so I could reply to the constant stream of insults and distortions – to the Faith and to those who try to keep the Faith – issuing from Francis-Vatican. Can’t wait to reply to Fr. Spadaro….
That’s a very interesting analysis by the SSPX, but to me a dubia doesn’t sound at all like a “warning,” two of which are required, and if the problem is uncorrected, then to be acted upon by a Council. Also, I’m 99% certain that Francis, being a dyed-in-the-wool cunning and dishonest Marxist, will let his lackeys do the talking in response to the dubia, as Gabriel has already posted (“talking” = ad hominem attacks, in the sleazy world of the enemies of the Church).
I think it is a very good sign that the Cardinals’ consistory has been cancelled. It indicates that Francis is finally worried about the resistance to his rampages. I’d also be willing to bet that Cardinal Sarah, recently neutered twice, is with the four, behind the scenes.
That said, I hope no one here expects that Francis will recant. No, he will just dig in. I do hope, however, that at some point he notices that he is digging his own grave…are there any Lutherans in Damascus he could visit???
That is the trouble with the Pope, he just comes out with statements be believes are self-explanatory but is unable to grasp that people do not understand what he is saying at all. So we want to clarify just in what circumstances the Divorced and Remarried can receive Communion as he pronounced and he thinks he has answered that. Now I can envisage a situation where a priest does journey with a divorced and remarried man or woman for the sake of the children since they might function as a wonderful family of love, but that does not mean that when the priest is satisfied in some obscure way that the situation is let us say ‘mature’ he can allow the couple to receive communion. That is where Kasper and company come in and twist the teachings. So as Cardinal Burke says these positions have to be clarified so that the teachings of Jesus are not ignored as Kasper and several bishops have decided they should be in their diocese because they say that is what the Pope meant. The man is just too old for the job.
Has this been posted?!!
Editor, if this turns out to yet another Google ad, I’ll give up posting!
Success! Your link led through to the Catholic Family News report about Pope Francis’ reaction to the Cardinals’ letter. Poor Google will just need to advertise for another Advertising Blog Assistant (ABA)!
Prepare to drop your jaw… here’s the headline…
As expected, Francis dissmisses the four Cardinals’ Dubia against Amoris Laetita, and resorts to personal insults: “They are acting in bad faith to foment divisions.”
Now visit Crofterlady’s link and read the rest.
In short, the Pope’s arrogant comments are not a response to the dubia, just a dismissal of them (I’m stunned, I need to go lie down…). Which means that the 4 Cardinals will have to take the next step…
Yes, RCA Victor, and it’s that next step that I am looking forward to most of all, and I suspect that it’s that same next step that caused Papa Francis to cancel tomorrow’ consistory. How’s that song go again… It takes a worried man to sing a worried song, O yes, it takes a worried pope to cancel a con-sis-toryyyyy…. Something like that 😀
Please don’t think I’m making light of any of this, but it is something of a relief to see the Cardinals, however few in number, acting in this way to defend the Faith. It is music to my ears. Which takes me, on cue, to the SECOND verse of (roll drum….) It takes a worried man…. 😀
Have you a vacancy for an ABA? I’m super qualified for the job.
It’s GOOGLE who employed you, don’t you remember? You kept posting links to adverts for their mobile phones etc. So, you need to ask THEM or IT (GOOGLE) for another job!
The trouble is with all these progressives and Modernists is that they truly, genuinely believe they are improving Christianity in the light of science – psychology, sociology, anthropological studies and so on.
What they seem entirely unable to grasp is that God Himself gave us the Faith and the Church and as God, being unchangeable and perfect, could not have given us anything that wasn’t the finished article, their desire to “update” it makes them, consciously or unconsciously, servants of the devil and of the Revolution.
I keep coming back to the word “HOLY”. I never, ever heard Ratzinger talk about it (although maybe he did), while for Bergoglio it appears to be entirely unnecessary category of thought altogether: the natural man, unredeemed from Original Sin or from personal sin, is fine as he is.
I have just read an article by an Italian Magazine called Avvenire where the Pope attacks those who have criticised him as rigid and dishonest in there approach. He also goes on to say that proselytism among Christians is a ‘grave sin’. So if you try to talk a Protestant into becoming a Catholic you are rigid and will have to confess what you did in confession. The man is quite mad. Crux magazine is showing the article.
He is —- VATICAN TWO MAN!!! Kerboom!!!! Zapppp!!!! Splat!!!! Kerpow!!!!!
Mad as a hatter of course.
BREAKING: In wake of 4 Cardinals letter, Pope Francis rebukes ‘legalism’ of Amoris Laetitia critics
I’ve just read that LifeSiteNews report and it finishes that the Pope is “not happy at all” and “boiling with rage.” over the Cardinals’ dubia letter.
How does he get away with calling them rigid and hinting at their mental state – what a terrible way for a pope to behave. We should keep praying for him.
They have got their reply, but probably not the one they expected!…
In any case, it clarifies the situation.
“Not happy at all” and “boiling with rage”.
Since the letter wasn`t meant to fill him with laughter or chill him out, I don`t
suppose anyone will be surprised at the reaction.
Here’s another report which is a little more wide-ranging:
“Proselytism among Christians, therefore, in itself, is a grave sin,” he said.
The journalist then asked, “Why?”
“Because it contradicts the very dynamic of how to become and to remain Christian,” he said. “The Church is not a soccer team that goes around seeking fans.” Source
How to square that circle with “Go out into the whole world, baptising them ….” – who knows – but it is increasingly (by the nano-second) clear that this pontiff needs our prayers. Urgently.
The good news is that Papa Francis is bringing a steady flow of disaffected Catholics to traditional chapels. I’ve been in touch with a gentleman from the Archdiocese of Edinburgh (a reader of this blog) who, on this very day, has overcome his doubts about the status of the SSPX. Thank you, Our Lady!
N O T I C E . . .
To support the four Cardinals’ letter to Pope Francis, sign this petition
if the Church is not a soccer team that goes around seeking fans, then why is Francis constantly performing publicity stunts to please his fans?
Was (is) the Church`s condition in allowing a mixed marriage that any children of the marriage be brought up in the Catholic faith not an act of proselytism?
Or have i got it all wrong?
The four cardinals should fire another letter back to enquire as to how many concubines a man will be allowed to have before he is disqualified from communion.
When he was in Argentina as Archbishop, he did nothing about the practice of priests having concubines. I believe it was commonplace, but as long as they were socially active priests, the Archbishop Bergoglio didn’t care.
As the Year of Mercy ends, Pope Francis shows how he does not practice mercy in regards to critics of his teaching. He blatantly refuses to answer the 4 Cardinals. We know he means no.
Hear hear. I couldn’t agree more.
Silent Apostasy of Francis
The absolute failure of Francis to teach, articulate and defend the “indissolubility” of Catholic matrimony at the Fall Synod of bishops in Rome makes vividly clear again the “Silent Apostasy” of Francis, his adamant heresy and significant schism for the first time in 2000 years, all in one pope.
And truly all cardinals, bishops, and priests who participate in this spiritual fraud and satanical deceit of allowing divorced and remarried Catholic’s to receive Holy Communion while still living with their adulterous mates without an annulment are equally guilty of the sacrilege of the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ, as well as Schism, just like Pope Francis.
Let us be clear here, Catholic Sacramental Marriage is forever unless annulled–in its supposedly few instances– in spite of what any pope may say, bishop, or priest in Confession or out of Confession regarding any mortal sin of adultery. Sacramental marriage is therefore “indissoluble.”
For the faithful to go along with this, they also are in schism for denying this perennial truth of the Catholic faith, namely, that all sacramental marriages are forever and to be living in adultery and frequenting any other sacraments of the Church without an annulment or until death of the partner is sacrilegious.
Looks like the 4 known cardinals are now up to 5. This from Rorate:
When presented with the argument of the progressive Catholic Cardinal Reinhard Marx that such a solution – to live as brother and sister – is impossible, Müller responded:
That is also what the Apostles were thinking when Jesus explained to them the indissolubility of marriage (see Matthew 19:10). But what seems to us humans to be impossible, is possible with the Grace of God.
With this statement, Cardinal Müller corrects any speculation that he would support the idea that “remarried” divorcees could live in a sinful relationship and at the same time could receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion. With this statement, the crack in the door has been closed again by the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
“up from 4 to 5” is good but why only 5? Are the majority of the cardinals OK with this pope justifying adultery?
Thanks for your reply.
“up from 4 to 5” is good but why only 5? Are the majority of the cardinals OK with this pope justifying adultery?
I must admit, their silence is disturbing. Certainly there must be many more who hold the same opinions as the Priest who wrote the article, quoted in my above post. Maybe they are not being silent, it could be that the media is ignoring them.
St. Michael (The Angel of Peace and Guardian Angel of the Blessed Sacrament) when teaching the Fatima children the Eucharistic Prayer of Reparation, VERY SPECIFICALLY PLACED INDIFFERENCE TOWARDS THE BLESSED SACRAMENT ON THE SAME LEVEL OF GRAVITY AS SACRILEGE AND OUTRAGE. (upper case used here Nicky in the hope that if any the Clergy read this, they give their support to Cardinal Burke, if they have not already done so)
Let’s hope Nicky, that Our Beloved Mother and St. Michael strengthen, guide and enlighten them.
Anyway, we shall soon know. Cardinal Burke’s action will separate the men from the boys, the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the chaff.
This ever growing, extremely dangerous modernist heresy must be destroyed in it’s entirety, root and branch!
Sancta Mater Dei, ora pro nobis
I agree that Cardinal Burke’s letter will separate the men from the boys among the hierarchy.
The pope was furious about the Cardinal’s letter so maybe that is why he sacked the whole of the Pontifical Academy for Life
It’s getting more serious by the day. God will have to intervene soon, otherwise who knows how many people will lose their faith.
“I must admit, their silence is disturbing.”
“Disturbing” is eating too much cheese before sleeping.
Their silence isn’t “disturbing”: it cries out to Heaven for vengeance!!!
I believe the “silence” started with the refusal to condemn Communism/Socialism/Marxism at VII, and the thwarted attempt of 400+ Council Fathers (including Abps. Lefebvre and Castro de Mayer) to insert that condemnation into Gaudium et spes. The motive behind this was the Vatican-Moscow Agreement which took place behind the scenes (apparently unknown to most of the Fathers, but well-known to the “progressive” ringleaders, whose allies the Communists were).
So the Church was rendered mute on the “errors of Russia,” precisely those evils which were cited by Our Lady of Fatima, and the subject of her warnings!
The scandalous Papacy of Francis is actually the logical culmination of that silence, which has resulted in not only silence on Church teaching, but an overt embrace of the ideology of her mortal enemies. That Francis is nothing but a Marxist, serving the agenda of international Marxism, has been obvious for quite some time.
But, I suppose “Marx” is just a new way of spelling “Judas.” Talk about “updating”!!!
This is more about the cancelled meeting and the Pope’s anger at the “conservatives”
Saint Thomas More has something to say about those Bishops keeping silence, but I am sure they will definitely not like it.
Here’s the latest on the Dubia from Hillary White, via the excellent Remnant site.
Il Boom: Cardinal Dubia and Vatican Schism
I don’t know anyone who isn’t either privately or publicly suggesting that this is the “beginning of the end” of the Bergoglian pontificate, that we have all known has been heading straight for exactly this precipice. And now, after fifty years of struggle in our quiet civil war, the cliff is finally in sight. However politely the questions – and interviews – are worded, the truth is that the choices before the pope are now simple: recant or be deposed. The questions, despite what he seems to believe, cannot be dodged. Does the pope adhere to the Catholic religion? Is he trying to overturn it and put something of his own – and his handlers’ – devising in its place? Remaining silent isn’t an option.
(2) The necessity of this outcome – always barring miraculous interventions, conversions or the Parousia – was clear to those who knew the Faith from the day following Walter Kasper’s February 2014 consistory address. That already notorious heretic laid out the course that this “Sankt Gallen Mafia” cabal, of which Bergoglio is merely the chosen instrument, from that day, and none of them have deviated from it a single iota since then. Fr. Brian Harrison was perhaps the first one to put it clearly. In a letter to Robert Moynihan, Fr. Harrison warned of “the immensity of a massive, looming threat that bids fair to pierce, penetrate and rend in twain Peter’s barque – already tossing perilously amid stormy and icy seas.”
END OF EXTRACTS
I love Dante’s various apt punishments for us sinners who die in mortal sin. The punishment for negligent , putting it mildlly, bishops, is succint. These men are called to be PILLARS (NOT PILLOWS!) of the Church, supports for their flocks, and instead have become stumbling blocks. Therefore, Dante consigned them to Hell, to spend eternity, ETERNITY, upside down in pillars.
Let us pray for them.
Leo Cushley isn’t a Cardinal.
(I don’t mean to nitpick – just second guessing myself, if I have somehow managed to miss that news about the Scottish Church?!?)
Of course Archbishop Cushley is not a cardinal (silly me). I probably got my wires crossed here because, in pondering his silence, I have wondered if he is keen not to scupper his chances of a red hat.
Thank you for that correction. I move so quickly from one thing to the next (one might say from one mistake to the next!) that I probably wouldn’t have noticed that for months! So, sincere thanks.
He should, of course, be speaking out anyway in support of the 5 cardinals – with or without a red hat!
Whatever his office, he certainly appears to have landed a Cushley number! That’s the ecclesiatical diplomat for you – never rock the boat, or the barque in this case!
“… a Cushley number”
No problem Editor! As I say, I was thinking “how did I miss that news?” and so went and double-checked haha!
I agree ++Cushley and ++Tartaglia should be speaking out in favour of the faithful Cardinals. Fat chance, sadly!
Ha ha Crofterlady, that’s hoot! I’ve never read Dante myself but I will try now that you have whetted my appetite. Upside down for all eternity?! My, that’s one heck of a long time!
Seriously though, what IS wrong with these bishops that they can’t see the writing on the wall? They seem congenial enough when one meets them so it bothers me to see their blindness. Do they not KNOW about the 4 Cardinals’ Dubias, or whatever it’s called, or do they just choose to ignore it? I always thought Archbishop Tartaglia had bottle so what’s happened to him? I never thought he was a wimp like most of the others.
Is Pope Francis a “Foreign Body” in the Catholic Church?
Comments are closed.