Filial Correction of Pope Francis for multiple heresies

Cardinal Muller has put forth a suggestion to have an open debate about the serious issues that have been addressed by the filial correction and all of the other requests for clarity that have been made. The debate is called a "theological disputation" and has been historically used in the Church to hash out theological problems just like this.

The Vatican has declined his idea.

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-remains-silent-on-filial-correction#.WcsXKvmGPIW

Why will they talk to everyone else under the sun. Active homosexuals, abortion promoters, adulterers, heretics, apostates, absolutely anyone, but they won't talk to faithful Catholics who have real concerns?

I am sorry, but this is getting ridiculous.
More and more people are becoming extremely concerned.
It is not just traditionalists anymore.
I am talking about many mainline Catholics. They are concerned. Very concerned.

What happened to the open dialogue they keep talking about so much?
I guess that was a joke...

 

Praetorian,

So sad, there's only open dialogue for the Left.

It sounds like the same thing that is going on in America (and probably in most parts of the world right now.)

I think that Free Speech Week at Berkley was basically cancelled this week, they don't want to hear from Conservatives.

Thank God that many people are becoming concerned.

 

He's a Jesuit who promised, as all Jesuits do, to not seek high office. He must have been tricked into every promotion.

 

The Filial Correction is an attempt to draw out Mordors Armies.
Small chance of success, certainty of death.

I'm all in.

 

And then we await...The Return of the King?

 

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/can-pope-heretic

 

Probably a little bit to unfold in between

 

At least the comment section is all over Jacobs conclusion.
What is all the fuss about?????
seriously?

 

It would be interesting to find out just what that psychoanalyst, the Jewish woman doctor/psychiatrist, that Pope Francis has admitted having to visit for a time to help him out, diagnosed for him. One wonders if Cardinals eligible to vote shouldn't have to take some kind of psychological stability exam to find out if there is any kind of psychological interference that would interfere with their ability to make stable judgements....or if there could be any of that type of interference that would block the work of the Holy Spirit. Here is an interesting article about this kind of accusation which is also a part of the current criticism. I've met some really "dedicated" liberation theology types/social justice types who completely center on material means only for solutions for the great cultural problems in some of the third world countries. This drives them to completely reject that portion of the Faith that looks to the spiritual aids and they have been prepared for such by the training in the various seminaries they had previously gone through.

Amid avalanche, real questions about the papacy risk being obscured

ROME - In the last six days, Pope Francis has been subject to three extraordinary accusations, each coming from disparate sources and covering different ground. In a nutshell, here they are:

• On Sept. 17, a right-wing Italian blogger and writer named Maurizio Blondet, drawing on a report by an Argentine journalist, accused Francis of suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, which Blondet claims was manifest during the future pope’s time as a Jesuit provincial in the 1970s and which Blondet says has defined his career ever since, including in the papacy.

............
Blondet’s assertion draws on the work of an Argentinian journalist named Alejandro Brittos, who published a reconstruction of the pope’s past in early July titled, “How the ‘humble’ Bergoglio prepared his climb to the top of the Church.”

Among other things, Brittos cites a letter from two former Jesuit novices under the future pope, who assert that he was self-promotional about his virtues of humility and simplicity, and that he sought complete submission and loyalty from his disciples - both indicators, according to Blondet, of a narcissistic personality. He goes on to cite clinical descriptions of the disorder, which he claims also characterize Francis’s leadership style as pope.

......First, the suggestion that Francis has some sort of psychological disorder is not new. It’s been floating around in the traditionalist-deeply conservative Catholic world for a while, although it may have been given a new lease on life by a recent book-length conversation between the pontiff and French sociologist Dominique Wolton, in which Francis said that when he was 42 and a Jesuit provincial, he consulted a psychotherapist over an arc of six months “to clarify a few things.”

.....
Third, Milone is making a substantive charge that risks being obscured or minimized amid the frenzy about everything else.

His account is probably the least tainted by ideological motives, since Milone is basically a businessman and accountant, not a political or theological activist. If what he’s saying is true, Francis essentially has given up on financial reform and is content to allow business as usual in the Vatican to reassert itself while he pursues other objectives.

On the face of it, it does seem puzzling how an auditor whose position was designed to be accountable only to the pope could have been frozen out of contact with Francis for more than a year, and, when the time came to tell Milone he’d lost the pope’s confidence, the message was delivered by a subordinate backed by the threat of arrest rather than the pontiff himself.

Moreover, there’s sufficient independent evidence, including a Vatican trial for financial misappropriation going on right now in which the Italian cardinal at the heart of the affair has been carefully insulated from liability, to indicate it’s at least worth taking Milone’s suggestion of a rollback seriously.

https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2017/09/25/amid-avalanche-real-questions-papacy-risk-obscured/

 

When the Filial Correction was delivered on August 11th it carried 40 signatures. When it was made public on September 23rd-24th the number of signatures had risen to 62. Shortly after the number rose to the high 70's. As of September 25th the number sky-rocketed to 146.

http://www.correctiofilialis.org/signatories/

These are only the official signatories who must have some appropriate credentials to sign the document. It is separate from the general list of support that the public can sign.

 

Praetorian,

Just want to mention that the above, compiled list is only through Sept. 25th.

Safe in the Barque of Peter!

 

Ah! My numbers are off! Sorry.
Thanks for the correction.
Would that be a fraternal correction?

 

I fixed my original post. Can I ask where you found that date? I looked on the link I posted and didn't see any dates. Not doubting you, just curious.

 

Praetorian,

Awesome! I pray that it continues.

If Mario doesn't mind me answering your question, if you scroll through the list they basically state the date before any new signatures. So for Sept. 24th, 25th and 26th, there are new signatures listed, maybe there is another update coming soon for today. I think that is what Mario may have meant, 146 signatories up until last night, more tonight probably!

PS - I think it is possible that Mario did not realize that yesterday's count was in but not todays, tomorrows, etc. Keep praying!!!

 

Thanks Carol, I see it now. It is listed in the midst of the signatures. I didn't see that before. So to correct myself for the second time that number (146) is correct up until yesterday, the 26th.

 

Did anyone see The World Over on EWTN on Tuesday? Professor Joseph Shaw of "Filial Correction" fame was a guest. I missed it but it should be on Youtube in the next day or two.

 

Hmmmm.....

The document against the Pope's “heresies”: it happened to Wojtyla too

The “Sedevacantism” front attributed to Pope John Paul II no less than 101 unorthodoxies. Even more numerous and widespread were the criticisms addressed to the Polish Pontiff from theologians who challenged "Roman centralism". While Cardinal Müller's doctrine was subject to bloggers’ judgment

ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY
The speed of the web and social networks that echo the message help to magnify what is happening - such as in the case of the so-called "filial correction” to Pope Francis - like as if nothing similar had ever happened before. A close look at the recent history of the Church shows that this is not the case, and helps place into the right slot the document signed by 79 scholars, researchers, journalists and bloggers in which it is claimed that Pope Francis has propagated 7 "heretical propositions". The authors of the text, also signed by the ex-president of the IOR Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, quote 7 "heresies” that the Pontiff has actually never written or pronounced, but which have been “deduced” from his magisterium and his speeches. It is probably the first step towards that "formal correction" of which the American Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, one of the four signatories of the "dubia” on Amoris laetitia, spoke frequently about.


A look backwards helps to understand the real scope of this document. John Paul II was repeatedly attacked while he was alive, for his statements in line with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (the real issue for many critics) regarding ecumenism, religious freedom and dialogue with other religions. After his death some from the ultra-traditional side, like the Sedevacantism (those who believe

the see has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII), who have come to blame him for 101 "heresies” challenging his magisterium with quotes taken from the Papal documents of the past.



They criticize Pope Wojtyla statements on ecumenism, that is, on the "separated brothers", and the fact that they are precisely called brothers and no longer "children of the devil", on the possibility of defining "Christians" even non-Catholics, on the possible salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Church, on the salvation of children who died without baptism, on the possibility of Christian martyrdom outside the Catholic Church, or that Jews are defined as "our brothers". All this is accompanied by notes that indicate where and when John Paul II made certain affirmations, and where and when the Popes of the past had affirmed the opposite.

http://www.lastampa.it/2017/09/27/v...ojtyla-too-ofKgXvzfcbcYaCmXZ4XkwK/pagina.html

 

I believe it is so much part of our human nature to want to know how things stand. What's the real scoop? When it comes to the Holy Father, I've increasingly over the last few years been discouraged by his silence and at times contradictory behaviors. Having experienced all this, it is tempting to conclude: the slippery slope is a cliff and persecution from within the Church is about to shift into high gear. Now that I have that all figured out, all I can do now is keep score and wait in prayer with other like-minded Catholics.

Sound familiar?

But then a spark of hope appears. My tendency is to want to ignore this spark because I've got everything figured out; there's just too much evidence. Vatican Insider is just part of their team! Or so my mind is tempted to think.


http://www.lastampa.it/2017/09/26/v...l-teaching-yom5rmEIfGPzsMDlS7o6eP/pagina.html

What is this spark? It is the opinion that the official English translation of Amoris Laetitia is faulty and that scholars who have constructed their filial correction based on a faulty English translation are amiss.

A spark is only a spark, however; if nothing occurs to fan this spark into a flame to show that I'm not delusional, it will die.

Here are the questions of hesitation that pop up in my head:

Why does it appear that only the English translation is out of kilter?
Why wasn't this "faulty" translation never detected until now?
Will the Vatican abandon their cloak of silence to acknowledge and correct the translation, if necessary?
If undermining dogma and natural law is the goal of the neo-modernists within the Church, why would they respond favorably to this "discovery"?
After all, isn't their agenda in full gear?
Why would they shift gears when their goal draws ever nearer?

On the other hand:

Maybe this spark is from the Holy Spirit?
Could it be an initial step to begin a process of reclaiming unity?

I notice my doubtful questions are 3X more numerous than my hopeful ones.

Still, hope is a theological virtue. One thing must we be sure of- discouragement and pessimism will not win out. If the spark is genuine, great! However, if we have already encountered the precipice, great! In the Eternal Now, the Two Hearts have already won and we who remain faithful have our eyes forever fixed on God!

Romans 5: 1 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.

 

I hate to throw cold water on your spark of hope but reading through the list of signatories of the filial correction I notice that a great number of those who signed it are Spanish or Italian or other nationalities. I'm assuming they have read AL in their own language or, judging by the academic caliber of many of them, in the original Latin...

 

To be honest it almost doesn't matter what the actual verbiage of of Amoris Laetitia is. What truly matters is how the document is going to be implemented. What we do know is that bishops are interpreting this document in radically opposing ways. This attacks the unity of the Catholic Church. In fact I would say that the Catholicity of the Church, or its unity, is truly what is at stake here.