Edit: this came in from Dredgister and Ed Pentin. It will be interesting to see what this accomplishes. The link goes to the full text:
[Catholic Register] Four cardinals have turned to what they call an "age-old" process of posing a series of questions to Pope Francis in the hope that his clarification will help clear up “grave disorientation and great confusion” caused by key parts of his summary document on the Synod on the Family, Amoris Laetitia.
The cardinals — Carlo Caffarra, archbishop emeritus of Bologna, Raymond Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Walter Brandmüller, president emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, and Joachim Meisner, archbishop emeritus of Cologne — sent five questions, called dubia (Latin for ‘doubts’), to the Holy Father and Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on Sept. 19, along with an accompanying letter.
Each of the dubia is aimed at eliciting from the Apostolic See clarification on key parts of the document, most notably whether it is admissable to allow any remarried divorcees without an annulment holy Communion.
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-of-cardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia#.WCm2jrVOKEc
Vox Cantoris and Rorate Caeli also cover it. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/explosive-4-cardinals-officially-ask.html http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2016/11/breaking-bergoglio-ignores-plea-of.html
ReplyDeleteThe Remnant just posted this on their website:
Deletehttp://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2876-four-cardinals-throw-down-gauntlet-before-cunning-pope
It also links to the Catholic Herald in the UK.
Evidently this took place some time ago as it is stated that the Pope received it but has failed to respond to it. I would imagine that they gave him some time to reply but in the end in the absence of a reply they decided to publicise this and say this was a time for further reflection.
ReplyDeleteSo we have a situation where a Pope is asked a direct question on a question of faith and morals but fails to answer it. Is he not effectively abandoning his ministry?
He never had it to begin with..
DeleteI now see from the Vox Cantoris blog that the Cardinals wrote to his Holiness on September 19th so my surmise is apparently correct. They have given him nearly two months to reply and he has failed to do so. Does anyone familiar with Church history know of any precedent where a Pope fails to reply to a dubia and what happens next?
ReplyDeleteI can guess or hope what comes next..the schism? But it wouldn't be the faithful that left, we'd just need to point out to Francis that he and his followers are in schism.
DeleteArchbishop Lefebvre submitted to the CDF dubia re religious liberty. Some were answered by then-Cardinal Ratzinger; others were left unanswered.
DeleteThis was printed in book form. Go to www.angeluspress.com and search for "religious liberty". That will give you an idea of dubia.
Sept 19:
Delete170th anniversary of la salette
"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist."
As far as I know, no Pope ever did it, but we have now a Bishop of Rome, that's quite different....
DeleteI'm really confused by all this. I thought Dubia was the president before Obama. Am I missing something?
ReplyDeletehttp://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/2016/11/our-religious-experts-comment-on-trumps.html
DeleteThat was DubYA. :)
DeleteHold up, I'm wrong, that was DUBya, now that I think about it.
Delete"Dubia" is Latin for "doubt".
Delete"Dubya" (note the "Y") was the nickname of George W. Bush.
Errare Humanum est.
Margaret
I thought it was a joke.
Delete"You're either with us or your with the terrorists"..Murica.
DeleteDubia is latin four doubts. (plural)
DeleteBubium is latin for doubt. (singular)
I read that the pope has declined to reply. It used to be that popes upheld the true teachings of Christ and the Church and clarified ambiguous things. Those were the days.
ReplyDeleteThe four Cardinals and the dozen before them need to go back to theology school and revise what Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham had to say on the Primacy of Conscience and what St Paul taught on Christian Liberty. These form not only the basis of the standard Catholic teaching on the integrity of the Internal Forum, but the very foundation of Western Liberal Democracy. That the Cardinals fail to understand all this should come as no surprise. They are bogged down in an authoritarian clericalist ideology which holds everyone but themselves in contempt. They might even get to read the Gospels at some stage. That would be an education.
ReplyDeleteI bet Francis would have something to teach the four cardinals on Aquinas or the primacy of conscience or internal forum. Francis is not a theologian. He doesn't understand it, and he doesn't care for it. And if he replies, that reply will be written by Kasper or someone like him.
Delete"These form not only the basis of the standard catholic teaching on the integrity of the Internal Forum, but the very foundation of WESTERN LIBERAL DEMOCRACY".
DeleteHilary, haven't you got enough?
I mean this in charity Anthony: tread carefully with statements like "the Cardinals ... hold[s] everyone but themselves in contempt". Without evidence such statements are likely a species of reviling. The letter itself was written with language very respectful of the Holy Father. These men are of a high office in the church and their official statements should be treated charitably. As we do not have access to their interior life the only acceptable evidence of their disposition for the purpose of judgement is their own self-reports.
Delete"The four Cardinals and the dozen before them need to go back to theology school and revise what Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham had to say on the Primacy of Conscience and what St Paul taught on Christian Liberty."
DeleteThat is what is known as "a Freudian slip."
Many people would like to "revise" what Saint Paul had to say rather than "review" what he had to say, but they are foolish.
What evidence do you have that the Cardinals hold anyone in contempt? Further perhaps you could explain what you think is meant by the Primacy of Conscience and Christian Liberty. We could then debate the matter.
DeleteTee hee hee.
ReplyDeleteSeattle kim
It is wise of the Holy Father not to reply. He must know that this Gang of Four do not really want clarification, but only to catch him out and admit he got it wrong - and then perhaps resign so that another Papa Benedict of their choosing can succeed.
ReplyDeleteTheir letter is highly disingenuous and smugly self-righteous - very typical of soi disant defenders of orthodoxy. They are light-years away from understanding Pope Francis' humble Christlike desire to temper abstract justice with divine mercy for the sake of suffering humanity. They clearly inhabit an ivory tower remote from the world and only know the rule-book, and so there is no point in replying to them. They can only be ignored.
And who are you to say the motives of these Cardinals are smug and self-righteous? I know this pope has said he is humble but his iron fisted rule and the name calling of the faithful might make one doubt it.
DeleteHe is neither wise nor holy nor humble nor christlike, and his mercy is a false mercy. Wake up and smell the smoke of Satan.
DeleteSo, what are the answers to their questions?
DeletePope Francis is contradicting Jesus Christ himself who said to the woman caught in adultery "Go and do not sin anymore" (Jn 8;11).
DeleteUrsula
And who is M. Prodigal to say the Pope is not humble?
Delete.....uuuuh....a person with more than one active braincell?
DeleteI hope there is a growing groundswell among the faithful to force Francis to resign.
ReplyDeleteDamian Malliapalli
He had an unexpected meeting with the members and heads of the Roman Curia yesterday....maybe he said to them "I quit". I hope so.
Sociology v Theology.
ReplyDeleteAnon. at 4;03 AM REMINDS ME OF THE PRO-fRANCIS/ANTI-cATHOLICS COMMENT THAT SOMEONE NAMED GABRIEL USED TO POST.
ReplyDeleteDAMIAN MALLIAPALLI
This is a very serious thing. This Pope has not had the courtesy to respond to these good Cardinals, who are in loyalty to the Faith asking him a legitimate question.
ReplyDeleteTo simply ignore them is a very grave error by Francis, for now, as of yesterday, Cardinal Burke said that the Cardinals, and even more supporters, are contemplating issuing a "Correction" of their own against Pope Francis and on the side of Catholic tradition. This has not been used on a Pope for almost eight hundred years!!!!!!!!!!!
I think the Cardinals, an I hope more rise up against Francis and declare him unfit for office, IF NOT AN ACTUAL HERETIC.
I hope it expands to such a scale that Francis is forced to resign.
Damian Malliapalli
So for Cardinal Burke Vatican Council II would also not be magisterial ?
ReplyDeleteMy position is that Amoris Laetitia is not Magisterial because it contains serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin. A document with these defects cannot be part of the Church’s perennial teaching. Because that is the case, the Church needs absolute clarity regarding what Pope Francis is teaching and encouraging.
INTERVIEW with Card. Burke about their plea to Pope Francis “Seeking Clarity”
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/11/interview-with-card-burke-about-their-plea-to-pope-francis-seeking-clarity/
Yes there is error in Amoris Laetitia however Vatican Council II also has error and so could not be considered magisterial.There is an objective error in Vatican Council II and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
Amoris Laetitia rejects traditional moral theology with subjectivism. It assumes what is subjectively known only to God is also known to man. It assumes for example, that we can judge when a couple in objective mortal sin is not in mortal sin. So the Eucharist could be given to them. It rejects Veritatis Splendor and Catholic morality as was taught by Pope John Paul and previous popes, based on the Bible.
Similarly the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston also has rejected traditional salvation theology with subjectivism and this error has been placed in Vatican Council II.The Letter 1949 in principle accepted that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were objectively visible in the present times. Then with this irrational premise it concluded that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II also suggests in principle that hypothetical cases are a rupture with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors.So not only the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16, AG 7, LG 14) refer to exceptions to EENS but also ' being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11), 'good and holy things in other religions'(NA 2),'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8),known cases of salvation outside the visible body of the Church with the 'subsistit it' new theology(LG 8) etc.
This is bad philosophy. It has mixed up with is invisible as being visible, what is subjective as being defacto known, what is hypothetical as being objectively seen.
This is a factual and objective error in Vatican Council II with reference to the dogma EENS.
We cannot see people who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc. So why are they mentioned with reference to EENS? I accept them as hypothetical cases.So there is a choice.Vatican Council II chose the irrtional option.
With bad philosophy bad theology was created and accepted by the Council Fathers.The magisteriuam had already not corrected the error in the 1949 Letter.The Archbishop of Boston did not support Fr.Leonard Feeney. He was saying there are no known cases of the baptism of desire etc and so there could not be salvation outside the Church.
Some of the Church Fathers at Vatican Council II accepted this error and inserted it in the text since they believed that the baptism of desire etc referred to known cases in the present times. Cardinal Richard Cushing was active at Vatican Council II and had still not lifted the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
This is all an objective error.It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. This is definitely not magisterial since it contradicts the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS by the past magisterium.It also does all this with the use of an irrational premise to create a non traditional conclusion.This new theology is based on an irrational premise.
So for Cardinal Burke Vatican Council II would also not be magisterial ?
-Lionel Andrades
The diabolical disorientation of vatican 2 was always going to lead to schism one day.
ReplyDeleteThat day is almost upon us.