Four Cardinals put Francis on public trial

BREAKING: Four Cardinals put Francis on public trial

Louie Verrecchio
November 14, 2016

Francis scowlSandro 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.

[I]he yes/no questions that make up the dubia have 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.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/11/14/four-cardinals-put-francis-on-public-trial/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

5 comments on “Four Cardinals put Francis on public trial

  1. “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.”

    I love Verrecchio’s spirit and smarts, but with all due respect, No.

    Individual laymen simply do not have the authority to declare whether someone is a pope or not. Only the Church can do that.

    C’mon, people. Hasn’t the bitter zeal, arrogant presumption, assumed ability to read souls, etc. of the sedevacantist movement shown us sufficiently that this private judgment thing only leads to chaos and disorder? Remember, according to canon law, no one can be punished without a formal judgment, and one that sufficiently shows that the accused actually and formally sinned. (Old Code 2199 – 2202; New Code 1321ff). Punishment under canon law requires actual mortal sin. Heresy is a mortal sin, of course, but basic catechism tells us the three things required for that:
    1) Grave matter (heresy is very grave matter, and matter is seen in the external forum, and in Francis’ case is quite clear, so this one checks)
    2) Sufficient knowledge that it’s grave matter (discerned somewhat in the internal forum; given the anti-Catholic training that has been given in so many seminaries — especially Jesuit ones — for many decades, and this under *color* of Catholicism, this is rather problematical to prove)
    3) Full consent of the will (discerned in the internal forum; also problematical to prove)

    That’s why there must be a formal, public process by the proper authorities to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these conditions are fulfilled, and that therefore a punishable and formal crime of heresy has been committed.

    • Louie jumped the gun.

      As you pointed out in your other comment, and we now see in Tom’s next post, the pope is simply going to brush this aside knowing that there aren’t enough cardinals and bishops who are willing to drop everything and confront him over it. But the process illustrates that there is something seriously wrong. Just like when Obama said there’s “not a smidge of scandal” in his administration.

  2. Quote: “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.”

    He is entitled to his opinion (hence, the “in my view” warning). The current occupant of the papal throne, an emotional progressive modernist from South America, obsessed with “excessive rigidity” and air conditioning when he steps out of theology and offers advice on climate change and meteorology, has engaged in a pattern of dissembling and confusing public statements in interviews which have caused scandal, confused the faithful, and revived Protestant anti-Catholic bigotry in ways no other pope in our lifetime has. It’s not unreasonable that some have suggested that Bergoglio’s progressive modernism and Situation Ethics wander into heresy. As a passive-aggressive modernist from the fever swamps of South America, he can assert new make-believe doctrines on marriage, divorce, and Holy Communion, but faithful cardinals and laymen alike may question whether these are consistent with the true Catholic faith and whether they serve the Church. What was it Bergoglio once said about following one’s conscience and one’s own idea of the good? Does that only apply to atheists and progressive modernists? It is amusing when overbearing progressive modernists from Latin countries invoke Ultramontane notions of papal authority to demand obedience to their experiments in Situation Ethics while claiming to advance the Spirit of Vatican II and the integral humanism of conscience, as if they think Catholic laymen won’t spot the contradiction. Even Maritain and Teilhard might find that confusing.

    • HA,

      Thanks for pointing out Verrecchio’s qualifier. My objection, however, has to do with the claim itself, that Francis’ silence would be proof positive that he is an anti-pope. Certainly Verrecchio is entitled to his opinion. I am merely offering my own contrary opinion.

      I think I proved my opinion by also offering facts and reasoning to justify it. Now, anyone wishing to stick to Verrecchio’s opinion has to find a fatal flaw in my argument. Otherwise they are guilty of sticking to their opinion just because it is their opinion. Which is to say they love themselves more than truth.

      I stand ready to be corrected.

      Love this comment:
      “What was it Bergoglio once said about following one’s conscience and one’s own idea of the good? Does that only apply to atheists and progressive modernists? It is amusing when overbearing progressive modernists from Latin countries invoke Ultramontane notions of papal authority to demand obedience to their experiments in Situation Ethics while claiming to advance the Spirit of Vatican II and the integral humanism of conscience, as if they think Catholic laymen won’t spot the contradiction. ”

      As someone said, a liberal is a walking contradiction. They are so often and so egregiously hypocritical; they are outrageously comical, infuriating and pitiful, all at the same time.

      Deus nos omnes salvet.

  3. Right. I was not making any claims about whether Bergoglio’s election was valid or not, nor any questions about his canonical status as the official pontiff. The nature of progressive modernism lends itself to questions about heresy which, in turn, gives rise to opinions about whether such modernists are in fact believing Catholics. There will be debates about whether Bergoglio’s initiatives on marriage, divorce, and Holy Communion move into areas of doctrine. Obviously, they are ongoing. Many years ago when John Paul II was still reigning, the controversies over the ecumenical gathering at Assisi had triggered discussions in traditionalist circles about heretics being elected pope and the issues involved in that. It is not necessary to make such a charge in advancing the argument that Bergoglio’s interview comments, writings, and behavior have been harmful for the Catholic Church. Enough bishops and theologians are already questioning the wisdom of changing the rules for reception of Communion by divorced and remarried Catholics that the controversy will continue beyond Bergoglio’s pontificate.

Leave a Reply