continued from above... Some have seen the Cardinal’s statement as perhaps a dodge on the question of a formal correction of Pope Francis. I don’t think so. That such a correction is still on the table is clear from his quotation of the 12th century canonist Gratian from his Decretals, which concluded the Cardinal’s talk: “Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of his faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all other men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to task for having deviated from the faith” (emphasis added). So, no, I don’t think it was a dodge. Despite passing on the details of a formal correction in his recent talk, the Cardinal already touched briefly on what a formal correction might look like in August 2017 (see “Cardinal Burke Outlines Formal Correction of Pope Francis’ Teaching” by Edward Pentin). Consequently, there was no need on this occasion to do so again. Rather, I think his talk was an effort to begin to make the case for why a public correction is justified based in canon law. Here his goal was to establish the legal premise for a correction. Essentially, if the pope acts in a way that deviates from the faith, he may be judged. This happens when a pope acts in a way that is “heretical and sinful”, or when he acts in a way that “fosters heresy or sin.” But has Pope Francis committed heresy in Amoris Laetitia? I don’t believe it is clearly the case he has. Pope Francis has thus far studiously avoided commenting directly on the specific cases he intended in Amoris Laetitia where communion is allowable (i.e, “certain cases” found in AL 305 (351), as discussed here). However, even so, more foolhardy “Francis apologists” – in an attempt to save Pope Francis from the potential of error – have crawled further out on the heretical limb than Pope Francis has thus far been willing to go in contradicting the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (see Amoris Laetitia and the Confusion of those contradicting the Magisterium of John Paul II). Yet, Pope Francis has not corrected them. For there to be a formal correction, it need not be demonstrated that Pope Francis has committed heresy. That a pope may be severely judged for having fostered or favored heresy, even if only through negligence, has been established by the case of Pope Honorius (See “Guilty Only of Failure To Teach” by Steven O’Reilly, and “White is Wrong” by Steven O’Reilly). Unfortunately, there is an uncanny resemblance between the case of Pope Honorius and Pope Francis (see here, here, here). As Cardinal Burke’s talk shows, a pope’s acts need not be clearly heretical to draw a warning and public admonishment. Heresy and or sin may be promoted even when a papal act or statement is ambiguous or ambivalent, admitting various interpretations (i.e., both orthodox and heretical). Acting on the ambiguity of Amoris Laetitia, many Francis apologists have already contradicted the Magisterium of the Church (see Amoris Laetitia and the Confusion of those contradicting the Magisterium of John Paul II). The position of this blog is that Amoris Laetitia 305 (351) is certainly unclear (see here, here, here, here, here, here) and in need of clarification. The failure of Pope Francis to clarify the evident ambiguity of Amoris Laetitia, and indeed even seeming to encourage it, now requires – nay, demands – a formal correction. Thus, I expect the formal correction will be here soon enough (see The Coming Storm). Briefly, I expect the “formal correction” will likely do something like 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 asked 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) The 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 another year or more 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. In conclusion, I do believe it probable that Pope Francis has already received a private warning. The first public correction or admonishment is coming – perhaps in the next two or three months. How this all plays out is the big unknown. Pope Francis can count on a large, majority segment of the College of Cardinals to support him. That said, I do suspect that his recent and past Scalfari interviews have created suspicions among many bishops that he holds heretical opinions regarding the fate of the damned. His seeming willful ambiguity on this point, might lead to more support for a formal correction with regard to Amoris Laetitia than might otherwise have been expected among so many careerist-minded bishops not wanting to rock the boat. If the crisis comes to a head while Francis still lives, the result will quite possibly lead to a schism. Thus, there is probably a lot of pressure in private on Cardinal Burke from other cardinals to wait until the death of Francis, after which a synod or an ecumenical council might settle the question under a new pope. After all, they may argue, the Church waited forty years before Pope Honorius, who fostered heresy through negligence, was corrected by the Sixth Ecumenical Council – so why do we need to rush a correction of Pope Francis? I don’t agree with that argument, but I suspect there are many cardinals – who accepting there are problems with Pope Francis – would prefer to defer the hard decisions to another day, and another set of cardinals. Soldier On! Do NOT remain silent – this means YOU! Posted on April 30, 2018 by Steven O'Reilly https://romalocutaest.com/2018/04/30/soldier-on-do-not-remain-silent-this-means-you/ PS- I find it somewhat interesting that the Dubia was made public on November 14, 2016 which is almost exactly 6 months from May 13th an important Fatima date. I'm not sure that this means anything but it is something that I happen to notice.
Excellent article Carol. Thanks for this one and all of the others you post. I think it very probable that something has been privately delivered to Pope Francis by Cardinal Burke and company.
Thank you for your posts Julia. I think sometimes we all get so caught up in the chaos that is engulfing the Church that we forget our own spiritual welfare and also charity towards others and specifically the Pope. There was a great quote on another thread that Carol posted from 12th century canonist Gratian from his Decretals. “Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of his faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all other men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to task for having deviated from the faith” We should all remember this when we speak of the Pope. A Pope has no human judge on Earth. If he has deviated from the faith it is one thing to hope he is corrected in charity, but to criticize him for other things, specifically things we have no certainty over I think we should all be very careful.
In reason, I can envisage this. God transcends time and has His Being in the eternal now. To God, all creation from beginning to end has its being at one moment. To God, the past hasn't gone, nor has He to wait for the future. At the Day of Judgement, I reckon all that ever happened will be presented before us, in its undeniable Reality. The discoveries in quantum physics hint at such a reality. I can conceive it, but can't imagine it, it's too much for my brain to get itself around. St. Thomas Aquinas might have been shown this great reality near the end of his life, and having such an exceptional intelligence, might have grasped it better than any other mere man-maybe that's why he subsequently dismissed his monumental life's work as 'straw'. Your last line is the best advice to deal with it all.
Been reading your linked article about her, Padraig. Notable was Our Lord's offering of Salvation, at his end, to Stalin. How merciful is Our Lord.
Yes I noticed that. That was very powerful! Sadly it seems Stalin did not avail himself of God's mercy.
I remember Jesus telling St Faustina that He calls a soul 3 times before death so they might be saved. It boggles my mind that anyone would refuse such mercy! But I guess they do.
I think there really is such a thing as perfect possession by the devil. In Russia Ivan the terrible, Stalin and Lenin are good examples. It would be very hard indeed to save such a soul. Stalin had a terrible, terrible death.
Very interesting thread, please let me add my own opinion, to me there won't be any other conclave in Rome for the election of a new Pope after Francis, The humble, I can be wrong of course but to me I don't think so, thank you .
Ivan the Terrible had mercury poisoning because he took it for his arthritis, which it works very well for but unfortunately also makes you crazy. I guess it's open to debate whether the drug would have made him more open to possession or it was just psychological problems. I think it's hard to tell the difference and probably often both, like that drugs can lower your ability to resist demonic attacks and make you easy prey. Poor guy killed his son, I feel bad for him.
Having taken my share of arthritic pharmaceuticals over the years I can tell you that some of them like the steroids they will often prescribe for severe cases can have horrible affects on ones state of mind. I was on a high dose of prednizone a few years back and I thought I was losing my mind at one point. Your body becomes completely dependent on them also and stops making its own so stopping them is often a process which takes months. Some people's bodies never recover fully. From what I know of taking mercury it often gave people severe hallucinations as a side effect. Very scary stuff to be taking. I think that when one is taking medications which can have such severe side effect it would be good to pray the deliverance and protection prayers which used to be much more commonly known and used. Father Ripperger put together a small book of them named Deliverance Prayers for use by the Laity.
Funny you should mention steroids Don. Because of asthma I was on prednisone during this respiratory flu. I wondered if it repressed my immune system. I had a terrible time getting over them when they stopped. Light headed, hard to sleep etc. they are great when you need them but they take a toll.
Yes that's exactly what it does and why they prescribe it for people with runaway immune systems battling infections etc. It is no fun coming off of them but they can also help when things get very bad. I had such a hard time with them that I avoid them now at all cost. I had such a dependence on them at one point that when I would drop 1mg in dosage it would cause severe flare ups of my RA, sweats, stomach and leg cramps and dizziness etc. It took about 6 months to gradually ease my body off of them. Many people with RA call them the Devils tic tac for that reason.
I believe it! I try to avoid them too if I can but with bronchitis or flu regular meds just don’t do the job. But like you I try not to take too many too often. There is a great line from the musical Bye Bye Birdie when Albert’s mother in her best NY Jewish accent says: “ I got a condition! If there’s One thing a doctor can’t cure it’s a condition!”
Last year's celebration of the Reformation blew that quote out of the water. Martin Luther called the Pope the Anti-Christ and you can't get more judgmental than that. Isn't there a sentiment along the same lines in the Lutheran Confessions? There is a Hell to which people can be condemned forever. Jesus said so, and the words of Jesus trump any human being whatever their position. Jesus didn't give atheists an option to have their immortal souls annihilated instead. Anyone who so much as hints otherwise is preaching a different gospel than the one handed down through the Apostles. St. Paul gave us a very clear warning of what to do should anyone, even an angel from Heaven, preach a different gospel. We're supposed to love each other into Heaven. Turning a blind eye to ambiguous statements hinting that evil is good is not love.
To be honest this is one of the reasons I don't post much anymore. The quote I cited in no way says we are supposed to turn a blind eye to things such as praising Martin Luther. We are merely always supposed to act in charity and not judge a Pope. That means his inner intentions, etc. Setting straight the Church teachings on Luther when they are ambiguously put forth would not be judging the Pope. “Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprimand a Pope on account of his faults, for he whose duty it is to judge all other men cannot be judged by anybody, unless he should be called to task for having deviated from the faith”
If you're right, it certainly nullifies the thread title, if I am assuming correctly that you imply Pope Francis is the last Pope. Am I correct in thinking that he would also be the last according to the prophecies of Saint Malachy?
