Sandro Magister at La Repubblica has published a private plea that was sent directly to Francis from four cardinals – Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner.
Citing the “uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation” that exists concerning Amoris Laetitia, the plea – which was issued in the form of a dubia or series of questions – was originally sent to Francis in September, but has thus far gone unanswered.
As such, the cardinals have decided to turn up the heat by making the document public along with the addition of a “Forward” explaining their action followed by an “Explanatory Note” to provide additional context.
The public version includes the following:
“Dubia” (from the Latin: “doubts”) are formal questions brought before the Pope and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking for clarifications on particular issues concerning doctrine or practice.
What is peculiar about these inquiries is that they are worded in a way that requires a “yes” or “no” answer, without theological argumentation. This way of addressing the Apostolic See is not an invention of our own; it is an age-old practice.
NB: The dubia has been addressed to Cardinal Muller at the CDF as well as to Francis – a brilliant move given that he is now compelled to answer publicly as well. Based on Muller’s previous comments concerning the matters under discussion, we have every reason to believe that he will answer in accordance with the true Faith.
I suspect that Cardinal Muller is not being blindsided here, but rather is conspiring with the four cardinals that created the dubia; likely from the start.
In any case, involving the CDF will serve to increase the pressure on Francis considerably.
Below are the yes/no questions that make up the dubia that has now been made public. As the well-informed will immediately recognize, the questions asked have already been answered by Francis in various ways.
So, what’s the point of asking questions that have already been answered?
This dubia represents a challenge for Francis to either publicly confirm or deny – in the form of a “yes” or a “no” – whether or not he holds the Catholic faith on specific fundamental matters that treat of no ambiguity.
In a sense, Francis is being put on trial for all to see.
Confirming the true faith, as is his duty, would rip the carpet out from under his crowning achievement, Amoris Laetitia.
Failing to do so would render him a formal heretic.
What I anticipate is continued silence, which will hopefully lead to demands from these and other cardinals and bishops for clear “yes/no” answers to the dubia.
Should Francis choose to remain silent, this in my view would be tantamount to a formal public rejection of the Faith and proof positive that he is an anti-pope.
1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?
2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
3. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
4. After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
(I invite you to read the additional text provided by the cardinals at La Repubblica linked above.)
Okay, AKACatholic family! Now is the time to storm heaven begging Our Lady to strengthen the four brave cardinals that their labours will lead to either a conversion of heart by Francis or to his deposition. The universe groans while we await the outcome!
I believe there are more than 200 cardinals. While we can be grateful to these four, what is going on with the rest of them? Do they fear Bergoglio? Or perhaps, they are “career men” who don’t want to jeopardize their future? In any case, I doubt any of these 4 will ever be considered for the papacy. Although, we have learned that Divine Intervention could change the course of history. Amen!!to that!
“…let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” (Matthew 5:37)
At last something is astir. Continuing arrogant silence means guilt. The CDF must now step into the breach & publicly demand the answers to the Dubia. There must be a quick response or Plan B set in motion – an Imperfect Council called to denounce PF as a heretic who can no longer occupy the Seat of Peter.
Vox Cantoris offers a possible explanation to your question, my2cents:
“Why these four? Why no others?
Well, these four have been stripped of all responsibilities by Bergoglio or they have retired. They have no flock to protect, no diocese to lose from the vindictive Bergoglio who has proven himself already to be a man of vengeance. If a Cardinal in a large diocese is removed, what good does that do his flock? It allows a vacancy to be filled by the likes of Blaise Cupich.”
Sounds reasonable to me.
Thank you, Servant of Our Lady. While this may sound reasonable, drastic times calls for drastic measures. It is time for all truly Catholic Cardinals (Bishops, all clergy) to unite against this blatant assault on Our Lord’s Church by the one who is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. It is Bergoglio who should fear being removed not the other way around. Yes, Bergoglio is vindictive and a man of vengeance. That’s good enough reason to send him packing back to Argentina. He is holding the Holy, Roman Catholic Church hostage.
What? No stinging criticism of Cardinal Burke for being weak as it relates to Jorge Bergoglio? I thought that was standard fare. Now is the time to turn that all that past misplaced anger toward the 200. Who cares what they have to lose (they do, I guess)? It is their duty to Almighty God to defend the Church. The Apostles and thousands of others have died for it. What if they lose all that influence and the really swell dwellings and cars…if they lose their souls in the process?
No council is necessary to do that. Catholics already know this.
If you are referring to a council led by Vatican-II “ordained priests” and “consecrated bishops”, then two things you should know:
1.- Heretics do not call out other heretics.
2.- They are all laymen.
Sure, a handful of old, pre-conciliar ordained priests are living, but, alas, they accepted and promoted V2 heresy. Just as three of these “cardinals” who are only priests (ordained in the pre-1968 rites), but they are not really bishops, and not really cardinals. They espoused heresy. They excommunicated themselves ipso-facto.
Now they want to make “things right”. They have espoused heresy to the degree of not recognizing it. Akin to the Anglicans wanting to congregate for the Lambeth council to discuss “doctrinal issues”.
Any Catholic with faith knows the church is not governed by these men.
They may have the buildings (many of them) but they do not have the faith.
I’ve been critical of Cardinal Burke in the past, but I have to give him his due on this one. Well done!
Case in point:
6 months ago, “Cardinal” Burke wrote an apologia pro-Amoril Laeititia..
Francis’ refusal to reply would not mark him as an anti-pope. If he does refuse, answers ambiguously, or answers in a way that supports the denial/reversal of the Church’s proper and perennial practices, this would be further evidence of material heresy, but that’s all.
If, at that point, the Cardinals choose to condemn Francis as a heretic – which this communication does not do – it is possible he loses his office. Or, it may be that that also requires another, subsequent formal declaration. This is where theologians differ. (However, all of them (most pertinently Saurez and Bellarmine) taught that at the very least a formal judgement from the Church is necessary.)
My feeling is that Francis isn’t going anywhere. This is all part of the plan (and we know the college of cardinals as a whole doesn’t have the balls to do what is necessary). Our Lady of Fatima foretold apostasy and diabolical disorientation at the top of the Church, not from outside the Church (as an anti-pope would be).
A Catholic thinker: If Francis were a true pope, no court in this world could ever judge him, much less condemn him. No cardinals, no bishops, no priests.
If a true pope were to lose his office by the way of public heresy, then he would lose it IPSO FACTO. No need for “judgement” or ” condemnations”.
That’s your theology, but not what the greatest theologians – and popes – in the history of the Church have taught. It’s nowhere close.
Try reading “True Or False Pope” for starters.
To elaborate a bit, in a sense you are correct: It is a heretical pope who judges himself, by ignoring ecclesiastic warnings and publicly clinging to heresy. But these things still require formal actions by the Church – again, every theologian who ever spoke on the matter agreed on that much, despite what those silly, sophistic sede vacantist leaders say.
A pope who loses his office ipso-facto does not “require formal actions” in order to make it so.
You stating it over and over, with sarcasm, does not make it so.
You didn’t bother to offer any support whatever for your position; whatever sede confusion and sophism you might offer still would not make it so.
I don’t debate sedes anymore because this is always how it goes: Sacrasm, insults, ego, and emotionalism. That’s what it’s about.
I debate for the audience, and to the audience, I say, again, check out trueorfalsepope.com (I am not directly affiliated); this will answer your questions. At first blush, sede vacantism seems to offer a solution to the crisis in the Church, but it leads to logical contradictions very quickly. It’s nonsense, and not something any theologian in the Church has ever taught, despite their fantasies (they pick what they want and ignore the parts that destroy their thesis).
Deo Gratias. At last a show of courage.
It is great joy (or sadness only 4 Cardinals want to be with Christ) to see this happening. I wonder if we are all forced to be Sedevacantists if Pope Francis confirms in public that he does not have Catholic Faith and he rejects the moral teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church.
Sorry to get my hopes up. What if we even get rid of Francis? Than what do we have? Back to where we were before him? Same with Hillary. We got rid of her..yes, great…but now what? We need Our Blessed Mother’s intercession and the CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY in order to solve Church and World problems. Then and Only then is when we will have a time of peace. Our Lady of Good Success promised her intercession at a time right before The Church will be RESTORED. I can’t wait. I have my eye on that prize. STAY FOCUSED, ALL!
You can be sure they have sufficient support for the publication of the Dubia to bring about a result. It is reckoned that the SSPX have around fifty supportive Cardinals & it is likely that Card. Burke would amass some more so we should anticipate some closure on AL. Papal Exhortations must be clearly stated so there is no ambiguity & if they are to be binding this rule should be made ex cathedra, otherwise there is no reason to follow them. In fact, all that these Cardinals need do is tell us what we know already – that PF is an antipope & we are to ignore him. That in itself would mean the end of his viable tenure.
Most have opposed the One True Faith for decades and worked against the Faith and morals. They chose the apostate, “Francis”, knowing his opposition to the Faith over aong time.
This is at least one official, public warning. Give another and then presuming he doesn’t repent and convert, etc., move to a meeting of those bishops who still have the Faith, and declare, what is flagrantly obvious, that JB is a formal heretic and has lost the external Office (having already not been holder of spiritual Office, having not been a member of the Church, internally for quite a long time). Bishoos and priests, put God and your duty to Him and the salvation of souls before your own temporal comfort or safety. True Catholics will support you in following the true Mission of Holy Church. God, help us all against Thine Enemies who control all earthly institutions.
Sedevacantism has nothing to offer anyone. Their priests are latae sententiae & haven’t the faculties to function as priests nor do they have the authority, infallibility or indefectibility to do anything, let alone licence or ordain priests. Nor can they prove that God hasn’t sustained His sacraments. They wish us to believe that He has abandoned His Church but at the same time cannot point to where the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic visible Church of Christ now resides. This is the Protestant error of an unscriptural invisible church. Most of their priests started off in the SSPX & after much arguments left & went in different directions (just like the Protestants) every one a little pope.
I have no regard for their position & personally don’t intend to waste more time in discussing their grave errors. There is only one church instituted by Christ & that is the visible One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church headquartered in Rome where Peter decided to build it & gave his own life for.
“that PF is an antipope & we are to ignore him” He probably is but we don’t have the authority to say that. The 4 Cardinals are doing the right thing in fulfilling the obligation laid out by the Holy Scriptures (have witnesses to admonish sinners) and Canon Law. But PF is not stupid he is pleading the 5th now even he is not protected by the U.S. Constitution.
“move to a meeting of those bishops who still have the Faith,”
What bishops are those? Please name them.
I agree with you but don’t go overboard. The Church supplies basic faculties to priests for the benefit of the faithful in times of necessity or even if “genuine spiritual advantage suggests.” See Canon 844 par 2 of the current code of canon law. It is very liberal in this regard. See also Canon 1248 par 1.
It only takes a small stone to start an avalanche .
As far as I know, our bishop possesses the Catholic Faith: Kurt Burnette, Eparchy of Passaic.
Christ is protecting His Church, because His Church is indefectable and lives on in all the priests and bishops that hold the true faith. The imposters who you call popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests have long since apostasized and lost their offices when they assented to the errors of Vatican 2. When you do your homework, you will come to the one and only logical conclusion that Vatican 2 is heretical.
Siscoe and Salza quote many sources, however very few of them are authoritative. They mosty quote theologians and Saints, but rarely Popes, Councils, or Canon Law. Their position is simply opinion.
And hopefully, whichever happens, the consecration of Russia will finally be done as Our Lady wished!