As the vast majority of readers of this space are perfectly well-aware, the current crisis in the Church concerning Francis in general, and Amoris Laetitia in particular, is part and parcel of the conciliar revolution.
As I wrote in the previous post, the documents of the Council – by turning on its head the constant teaching of the Church on such matters as religious liberty, ecumenism, the Church’s relationship with the Jews, etc. – actually set the stage for Amoris Laetitia to do the same with regard to adultery, marriage and family, Holy Communion, and even the very concept of mortal sin itself.
The authors of the dubia, Cardinal Burke chief among them, seem not to have a clue that the so-called “confusion” surrounding Amoris Laetitia pales in comparison to the “doubts” that plague the entire Church (and indeed the world) thanks to Vatican Council II.
With this in mind, and mirroring in form the dubia relative to Amoris Laetitia, I provide below a list of Dubia de Concilium – Doubts about the Council – comprised of questions, the answers to which every Catholic should have no doubt whatsoever (that is, if the sacred hierarchy was in the least bit healthy).
I’ve limited myself to just eight knowing very well that our readers will add to the list.
For the benefit of those readers who may perhaps be less familiar with the topics addressed, I hyperlinked the relevant documents, and would strongly encourage them to take the time to compare the propositions set forth by the Council with the immutable faith as taught so very clearly in the centuries leading up that disastrous event.
Dubia de Concilium
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Dignitatis Humanae (n. 2), one still needs to regard as errors worthy of condemnation the following propositions a) “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true,” and b) “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church,” (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, nn. 15, 55)?
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Dignitatis Humanae, one still needs to regard as “impious and absurd” the proposition which states that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, n. 3)?
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Dignitatis Humanae, one still needs to regard as valid the teaching of Pope Pius XI which states that “not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ” (Quas Primas, n. 32)?
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Lumen Gentium (n. 8) one still needs to regard as valid the teaching of Pope Pius XII which states that “the true Church of Jesus Christ – is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church (cf Mystici Corporis, n. 13)?
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Unitatis Redintegratio (n. 3), one still needs to regard as valid the teaching that the “the society established by the Redeemer of the human race … [is] the only haven of salvation” (cf Mystici Corporis, nn. 3, 41)?
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Unitatis Redintegratio, one still needs to regard as “a certain false opinion” the following propositions a) that the words of Christ, “That they all may be one…. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,” (John 17: 21, 10:16) merely “express a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment,” and b) that “this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal” (Pope Pius IX, Mortalium Animos, n. 7)?
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Unitatis Redintegratio (n. 3), one still needs to regard as errors worthy of condemnation the following propositions a) “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation” and b) “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, nn. 16, 17)?
- It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Nostra Aetate (n. 4), one still needs to regard that the mission of the Church as expressed by Our Blessed Lord; namely, to baptize and to teach the nations (cf Mt. 28:16-10), is as applicable to the Jews in our day as it was when St. Peter called them to conversion on the day of Pentecost (cf Acts 2)?
The unfortunate truth is, folks, until such time as the Council’s errors are plainly condemned and the entire affair is consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs, along with the Novus Ordo Missae, and Russia is consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary as requested at Fatima, the current ecclesial crisis is only going to worsen; even in the unlikely event that Jorge Bergoglio is justly run out of Rome in shame.
Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!
UPDATE: I recently received more than one email suggesting that the title to this post (formerly “Dubia de Concilum”) should be corrected. Here is the first of them:
I’m a Catholic layman and Latin student from Croatia. Just wanted to say, you should fix your title “Dubia de Concilium” to “Dubia de Concilio. “Concilio” is Ablative singular form of “Concilium, i, n.”. Ablative case is required by preposition “de”. Thank you for you great work.
I’ve said it before and it bears repeating: Readers of this space are among the most well-educated, formed and informed of any in the entire Catholic blogosphere! I greatly appreciate all of you!