Discussion in 'Church Critique' started by BrianK, Sep 24, 2017.
Visiting the relic of St Thomas signals he is in the fight.
I don't think so. If he was going to resign it would mean he was defeated and he wouldn't be dramatic about it.
I am pretty sure this means he is deadly serious and will carry through no matter what the consequences are to him personally.
He is giving Pope Francis every opportunity. I know everyone is antsy for him to just deliver the correction, but I think in the long term it was very intelligent, charitable, and wise for him to carry through with things in the manner he is. It will show he is not just a hothead who disagrees with the Pope and that it is not just a matter of "sour grapes" as some have claimed. Indeed he has shown he does not want to deliver the correction, but feels it is his duty before God.
What if it means he will submit to the Pope's will even if be believes the Pope to be in error?
Had Henry VIII been alive today, he would have had a bishop officiate at all six of his marriages. Under today's rules all his broken marriages would likely have qualified for an annulment and he would have had the fallback get out of marriage clause AKA the internal forum.
Then he will have put man before God.
And most of the Cardinals will.
I agree that he was wise to proceed with caution and give Pope Francis every opportunity to respond to the dubia. I just wish it was over and done with. Please don't tell me to be careful what I wish for because I'm dreading the thought of what lies ahead. Sometimes the anticipation of trouble can be worse than having to actually face it.
Most of the Cardinals did that at the last Conclave. Cardinal Bergoglio and his ideas were an unknown quantity to us but the Cardinals knew who they were putting on the throne of Peter.
I think you are right. We have been in such a hurry to get to the correction, we forget what lies beyond it...
Yes. The old saying "be careful what you wish for..."
It is so unprecedented what is going on. I share your dread. I have used this analogy before but it is like the old map makers warnings on their maps: beyond here there be dragons.
It is interesting that on the Garabandal thread just now, there is discussion about what may be happening in the Church around the time leading up to the alleged 'Warning' spoken of from the Garbandal visionaries.
There seems to be a consensus that there will be a Church Synod possibly shortly before the 'Warning.'
Then it also appears at some point, Holy Father will make a visit to Russia, and when he returns to Rome the hostilities will break out. I suppose this must be some sort of revolution. Europe must have enough muslims packed in to start a civil war by now...
The other interesting thing that occurred to me. I always thought once the 'Warning' comes...everyone will be converted. All be Catholics and no more religious differences. But on reflection, when you think what happened with the Apostles the night the soldiers came to arrest Jesus from the garden. The moment of reckoning meant all the Apostles ran for cover. I always think Saint John ran to tell Blessed Mother what had just happened, I can't imagine Saint John deserting Jesus. And with all that in mind;
What I am trying to say is. If the 'Warning' happens. I believe Holy Spirit will enlighten our minds in a very clear way as to our conduct as God sees it.
It was love and humility that gave Saint Peter the courage to believe Jesus unconditional forgiveness for his human cowardice and fear on that terrible night.
It was pride and arrogance that blinded Judas, and left him incapable of believing Jesus could forgive him for his act of betrayal.
Now I wonder if at the 'Warning,' some hierarchy not all; as well as some lay people will suffer the fate of Judas. Now that could without a shadow of a doubt lead to a 'schism.' I am sure the traitors will not all hang themselves like poor Judas. And they will undoubtedly fight to defend their delusions or bad choices. I think we all have to 'keep watch and pray,' as Jesus advised the Apostles on the night of His betrayal. We have to wonder how things might have panned out if the Apostles had listened to Jesus, and prayed the Heavenly Father not put them to the test.
We have been warned in the Gospels how dangerous it is to presume we will make the right choices if put to the test. Yes, the hierarchy battles are very scary. God keep us safely under His Mighty Wing, lest we fall in the battle for our salvation.
Ugh what a dreadful thought.
Thank you this a very insightful post.
I think that both the Warning and the Miracle are required for conversions. I remembered reading the following on Glenn's thread and also in Conchita's Diary, it is from a locution that Conchita had with Jesus on July 20, 1963:
"...And with much feeling, I went on praying. And I said to Him: Why is the miracle coming? To convert many people? He answered:
─ To convert the whole world...
You can find it here on page 44 on the following link http://stjosephpublications.com/download/PDF/Conchitas_Diary_English.pdf
The only reason why I mention this is because it makes sense to me that the Miracle and the permanent sign left at Garabandal will make it absolutely clear, IMHO, that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
Agreed, this is from this article (which also has a video) : http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edwa...enerates-relic-of-the-head-of-st.-thomas-more
and them's fightin words
“Exceptionally Important” Witness
Speaking after his visit, Cardinal Burke underlined how “exceptionally important” St. Thomas More’s heroic witness is today in defense of marriage and the family.
“Basically, he died in defense of the truth about marriage, that it’s an indissoluble union and binds the marriage in lifelong fidelity to one another,” he said. “Sometimes it’s said ‘no, he died defending papal authority,’ but it was papal authority in the sense of the Pope’s obligation to defend the truth about marriage.”
“Thomas More, as a devout layman, understood that he, too, had a responsibility in all of this and exercised it to an heroic degree,” he added.
The American cardinal, who is patron of the Order of Malta, is himself battling to defend the Church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage in the face of widespread threats inside and outside the Church to weaken it.
“In the Church now, even as then, people argue that many people want this, and not many bishops are speaking up to correct this confused idea about the indissolubility of marriage, and the Church has to change,” he said.
But St. Thomas More is a “sign to us” that the “Truth never changes,” Cardinal Burke continued, and that it “doesn’t matter how many people are in favor of a lie, it doesn’t make it the Truth. That is a tremendous witness for us, and should give us courage to seek the Truth about marriage and defend it.”
Thank you for posting this. It is so refreshing to hear a successor of the Apostles reiterating what we have always been taught - that the Truth will still be the Truth even if nobody believes it. When I see Cardinal Burke's courage in standing up for the faith against the powers in the Church united with the World's powers, I thank God for keeping His promise to not leave us orphans. We have two good Cardinals. Pray that the rest will finally get around to doing their sacred duty.
Cardinal Burke strikes me as the bravest human being on the planet.
The following article may be helpful in relation to the possible forthcoming formal correction,
The Coming Storm
Posted on September 24, 2017September 26, 2017 by Steven O'Reilly
September 24, 2017 (Steven O’Reilly) – Last week saw the one year anniversary of the Dubia come and go. On September 19, 2016 Pope Francis first received the five questions submitted to him by the four “Dubia Cardinals;” Caffarra, Meisner, Brandmuller and Burke (see here). As we wait for the expected “formal correction” of Pope Francis by the Dubia cardinals, word comes that a group of 62 individuals from nearly two dozen countries have made public their own “filial correction” of Pope Francis (see here). A summary of this correction from the group’s website, says in part:
“It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church.”
For those that haven’t done so already, I urge you to read the document and its listing and explanation of the 7 heretical positions noted above, as well its explanation of the signatories’ purpose in addressing this correction to the Pope:
“As subjects, we do not have the right to issue to Your Holiness that form of correction by which a superior coerces those subject to him with the threat or administration of punishment (cf. Summa Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4). We issue this correction, rather, to protect our fellow Catholics – and those outside the Church, from whom the key of knowledge must not be taken away (cf. Lk. 11:52) – hoping to prevent the further spread of doctrines which tend of themselves to the profaning of all the sacraments and the subversion of the Law of God.”
I still need to read through the document a couple more times, but I believe the folks responsible for writing and signing this document have done a great service in the cause of the Church and of the truth. They are to be commended for this effort.
Without detracting from this noble effort, the main attraction yet to come is the “formal correction” led by the remaining “Dubia Cardinals.” What should we expect from it? Cardinal Burke has actually told us quite a bit. In an interview in the Wanderer, the Cardinal said (emphasis added):
It seems to me that the essence of the correction is quite simple. On the one hand, one sets forth the clear teaching of the Church; on the other hand, what is actually being taught by the Roman Pontiff is stated. If there is a contradiction, the Roman Pontiff is called to conform his own teaching in obedience to Christ and the Magisterium of the Church. The question is asked, “How would this be done?” It is done very simply by a formal declaration to which the Holy Father would be obliged to respond.”
In the Wanderer interview we can see at least three elements that Cardinal Burke suggests will be in the formal correction: (1) the teaching of the Church is set forth, (2) potential errors of the Pope are identified, (3) the Pope is called upon to “conform his own teaching” to Christ and the Magisterium of the Church. Cardinal Burke said something similar in a recent interview with the Hungarian independent Catholic news service Katolikus Válasz: “Since a formal correction would treat a fundamental teaching or fundamental teachings of the Catholic faith, it would require the Pope to fulfill his solemn duty to teach what the Catholic Church has always taught and practiced” (LifeSite News).
Both interviews, using different words, say something similar regarding the necessity of the Pope to respond. One says the formal correction would ‘oblige the Pope to respond’ while the other says “it would require the Pope to fulfill his solemn duty to teach what the Catholic Church has always taught and practiced.” It seems to me that Cardinal Burke is not speaking of a moral obligation which a Pope might ignore, but an obligation arising from an “or-else” hanging over the Pope’s head if he does not respond correctly or at all after a specified period of time and a specified number of warnings. That is, the See of Peter will be declared vacant if Pope Francis fails to comply after said warnings. Cardinal Burke seems to have suggested as much in a previous interview where he stated hypothetically: “If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen” (See Catholic World Report).
continued from above...
Now, it is certainly possible that my analysis is wrong. It just might be the “formal correction” will not do anything but outline the Church’s teaching, and outline the errors circulating in the Church under the papacy of Francis. I suppose this would be better than nothing or a kick in the head, but not by much. However, I don’t think the “Dubia Cardinals” would have started on this path if they were not willing to follow it even to the worst-case conclusion, i.e., issuing real canonical warnings that might conceivably end in the Chair of Peter being declared vacant if the Pope was pertinacious and obstinate. I previously provided some musings on a “formal correction” based on my reading of Cardinal Burke. Briefly, the “formal correction” document will likely do the following:
(1) The teachings of prior popes and of the Catholic Church related to the five Dubia will be clearly stated and cited (e.g. Familiaris Consortio, Veritatis Splendour, Council of Trent, Catholic Catechism, etc)
(2) Also specifically cited will be the erroneous opinions and practices that contradict these teachings, which are currently circulating among members of the Church (e.g., the communion guidelines of Malta, Germany, Rome)
(3) The Pope will be required to do two things. First, he will be asked to publicly affirm and profess the Catholic teachings cited and conform his actions to them. Second, he will be asked to explicitly and publicly reject – without reservations – the erroneous opinions and practices circulating which contradict those teachings, even if he himself had previously held, shared, or written such opinions himself as a private person and theologian.
(4) Formal Correction will either itself be the first warning, or if not, it will possibly state a first one (or second one, if the “formal correction” is the first canonical warning) will be issued if the Pope fails to do as requested after a specified period of time (six months?).
For Pope Francis to refuse or fail to respond to what such a “formal correction” asks – even by silence – would suggest the Pope is being pertinacious and obstinate. Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (“who is silent seems to agree, where he ought to speak and was able to”). In such a case, it would appear that the Church could rightly interpret silence and inaction as a clear sign of the pope’s pertinacious and obstinate consent to heresy. God forbid it goes down this path, but if it does, this process may drag out over a period of six or more months after the issuance of the “formal correction,” depending on the time periods given with each warning. In sum, there is no quick end or solution to the crisis.
The Dubia cardinals’ pattern till now seems to have been to deliver a private letter to the pope, and then to notify the Church publicly of their efforts should there be no response after about two months. For example, the dubia cardinals first went public with the dubia in mid-November 2016 after the Pope failed to respond to their mid-September 2016 letter. In June 2017 the Dubia cardinals publicized their failed attempt in May to seek an audience with the Pope to discuss the Dubia. Given this June notification was intended for the Church at large and not for the Pope, there would be no reason to long delay the delivery of the formal correction to the Pope after this point in time. Thus, it appears likely, to me at least, that the “formal correction” was hand delivered to the Pope some time in July or August. If the cardinals are true to their prior habit of waiting one to two months before going public, we might expect the “formal correction” by the end of October, if not much sooner.
This whole process began with only 4 “Dubia Cardinals.” There are now only two left. I hope the “formal correction” when it is issued will have many other cardinals as signatories. However, with Francis having appointed nearly half of the cardinals now eligible to vote in a conclave – and many of the existing ones having voted for him, we might be lucky to see twenty to thirty cardinals signing on to a “formal correction.” If, God forbid, the crisis continues down this nightmare path (i.e., Francis obstinately and pertinaciously refuses to affirm the Faith and reject heresy by the end of the time period set by the warnings) the remaining faithful cardinals, perhaps with the remaining faithful episcopate, would meet to declare the See of Peter vacant and proceed to elect another pontiff.
Of course, the deposition of a pope for formal heresy is only what is theoretically, or speculatively possible at this point. Only a few years ago this would be something one might find in a fantasy novel or in dusty treatises in theology written by long-dead theologians. Unfortunately, what was once only a debated hypothetical among theologians is now – lamentably – quite imaginable. Indeed, it now appears like a great storm on the weather radar – still distant, but approaching. Yet, many Catholics are unaware there is such a storm churning just beyond the horizon, some not having ever heard of “Amoris Laetitia” or the “Dubia.” I certainly hope Pope Francis will heed the corrections and warnings and spare the Church a certain catastrophe. It would be a catastrophe, but I have no doubt the Church would survive it. Let us pray Pope Francis remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).
Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. He lives near Atlanta with his wife Margaret. He has four children. He has written apologetic articles and is working on a historical-adventure trilogy, set during the time of the Arian crisis. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com.
UPDATED: September 26. 2017
Blast from the past
The EWTN Round Table programme on now has people from EWTN's Theology Department discussing the Fraternal Correction of Pope Francis.
Thanks Dolours, I'm so glad EWTN offers it's programs to stream and listen to or I would have very little media to listen to.
I need to remember to donate to them.
Separate names with a comma.