Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[Nihil Obstat]

How rude. 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

sorry

 

[Jack4]

1 hour ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

Traditionalists are the haughty brothers and everyone according to fundamentalist traditionalists and your own views regarding everyone involved in and born after Vatican II, including you, would seem to be the prodigal brother ie. sons of the father.

Fundamentalist traditionalists make alot of time in writing and typing "wat" is right and everything that is wrong with "The Church" and our "Vicar of Christ" and that is all that is done.  

I used to lean towards traditionalism.  That is why I came into this site, and I'm not sorry I found many like-minded thinkers and people who live out Christ's message ie.  "wat" sins He died for  on the Cross .  However, coming across people who know a thing or two about what @Luigi posted about "inner workings in The Church" ie. (intrigue unnecessary and irrevelant to us mere sheople - and I'm glad of it)  like the "traditionalists" I see as radically fundamental and not putting that fierce rigidity to some good and instead using it to generate hatred for " like it or not"  Our Holy Church and Our Vicar of Christ.  

That's wat.

I have seen your apology, and I also know that people might be touchy because they were having a bad day.  Just chiming in to note that nitpicking over typos might also be "haughty", "radically fundamental" and "fierce rigidity". 

[Nihil Obstat]

"Wat" was not a typo.

 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

3 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I have seen your apology, and I also know that people might be touchy because they were having a bad day.  Just chiming in to note that nitpicking over typos might also be "haughty", "radically fundamental" and "fierce rigidity". 

I can understand what typos are.  I also understand what sarcasm and being facetious is.

 

9 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

"Wat" was not a typo.

 

I don't think so.

[Nihil Obstat]

http://www.catholicaction.org/interview_with_cardinal_burke_about_the_dubia?utm_campaign=dubia_sup_1116&utm_medium=email&utm_source=catholicaction

 

November 14, 2016

Catholic Action president, Thomas McKenna, was granted the following interview with Cardinal Raymond Burke to further explain the intentions of the four cardinals and the published documents entitled “Seeking Clarity: A Plea to Untie the Knots in Amoris Laetitia." 

 

CA: So you are saying that you are publishing a letter that you sent to the Pope privately. This is extraordinary. Isn’t this action objectionable from a Christian point of view? Our Lord said in the Gospel of Matthew (18:15) that if we have a problem with a brother, we are supposed to talk with him privately, one-on-one, not publicly.

In the same portion of Sacred Scripture to which you refer, Our Lord also said that, after addressing a difficulty to a brother, individually and together with others, without it being resolved, then, for the good of the Church the matter is to be presented to the whole Church. This is precisely what we are doing.

There have been many other statements of concern regardingAmoris Laetitia, all of which have not received an official response from the Pope or his representatives. Therefore, in order to look for clarity on these matters, three other Cardinals and I used the formality of presenting fundamental questions directly to the Holy Father and to the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. No response has been given to these questions either. Therefore, in making public our questions or dubia, we are being faithful to Christ’s mandate to first talk with a person privately, then in a small group, and finally, taking the matter to the Church as a whole.

 

CA: Some Catholics may be concerned that your current publication is an act of disloyalty.

I, together with the other three Cardinals, are striving to be loyal to the Holy Father by being loyal to Christ above all. By making public our plea for clarity of doctrine and pastoral practice, we are hoping to make this a discussion for all Catholics, especially our fellow bishops. Every baptized person should be concerned about doctrine and moral practices regarding the Holy Eucharist and Holy Matrimony, and about how we are to identify good and evil actions.  These matters affect all of us.

Rather than being a matter of disloyalty to the Pope, our action is deeply loyal to everything that the Pope represents and is obliged to defend in his official capacity. Pope Francis has called for candid speech in the Church a number of times, and has asked members of the hierarchy for openness and accountability. We are being candid, with the fullest respect for the office of the Holy Father, and exercising, according to the light of our consciences, the openness and accountability which the Church has the right to expect of us.

This is my duty as a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. I was not created a Cardinal in order to receive an honorary position. Rather, Pope Benedict XVI made me a Cardinal to assist him and his successors in governing the Church and teaching the Faith. All Cardinals have the duty of working closely with the Pope for the good of souls, and this is precisely what I am doing by raising questions of grave importance regarding faith and morals. I would not be fulfilling my duty as a cardinal, and therefore as counselor to the Pope, if I remained silent on an issue of such serious matter.

 

 

[Peace]

I wonder whether it would be better if he just came out and told us that he thinks the pope is wrong, and explain the reasons why. I suppose the "doubts" do this to a certain extent, but why beat around the bush if you really believe that Pope Francis has taught error? Makes it seem kind of passive-aggressve. 

Maybe they don't really believe that Pope Francis has taught error and are earnestly seeking clarification. That is cool, but does anybody really believe that they don't think the pope is flat out wrong?

Or maybe they felt like putting it out there as questions rather than statements was a more respectful way of making the point. 

Anyway, I am not so sure that Pope Francis would be wrong if he meant that the divorced and remarried can be admitted to communion in cases that go beyond what others have permitted. He would seem to disagree with others before him, of course.

[Nihil Obstat]

Disagreeing with a pope is a risky proposition. And in either case, nobody can disagree with him before knowing exactly what he himself believes. The answering of these dubia allow the Holy Father to definitively refute those interpretations of his recent statements and documents which would be considered erroneous against the body of Catholic moral and sacramental theology.

The dubia are ultimately a gift to the Holy Father. It gives him an opportunity to clarify errors which have arisen. And if, heaven forbid, the Holy Father has through some mistake or misunderstanding taught error, then the dubia give him an excellent opportunity to recant. As, for instance, John XXII did when it was shown definitively to him that he had, perhaps unintentionally, taught error with regards to the immediacy of the beatific vision.

[Jack4]

22 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Yes, that is the precise point. There is room neither for ambiguity nor "diverging interpretations". Nor can anyone quibble about ban translations, speaking off the cuff, or being merely personal and inviting to various audiences. 

 

22 hours ago, Maggyie said:

I do like it's in the form of a yes/no. That's the clarity that's needed. 

Dubia are always in the yes/no form. However, it is possible to evade clarity even there. I remember reading dubia on SSPX, which was answered with something to the effect of  "In reply to your question, we redirect you to ....<statement>".

[Socrates]

I think this dubia deals with very real issues concerning the Church's (and Jesus Christ's) teachings on divorce and remarriage that affect the souls of many in the Church - so I think the issue is very important to Catholics.  It's not merely some obscure theological issue.  Amoris has caused a lot confusion on this issue, and this confusion has the potential to do great spiritual harm, so clarification is in order.  

The Cardinals are right to question this publicly.  There's nothing inherently wrong with questioning a pope, nor are popes impeccable, and their actions and decisions above question or concern.  Such "papal-olatry" was never in fact taught by the Church, but is superstition.

[Peace]

But seriously, who even knew what a dubia was? We are all using the word like we didn't just learn it for the first time two days ago.

[Nihil Obstat]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

But seriously, who even knew what a dubia was? We are all using the word like we didn't just learn it for the first time two days ago.

No, there have been some in the past that were interesting for a variety of reasons. They are not, at least in my experience, generally quite this far-reaching. The ones I have been interested in are usually very specific liturgical or liturgical-canonical questions. For example (and I have made this up) "In those places where it has remained customary, does the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter retain permission to use the second confiteor?" Or specific clarificatory questions on the application of canon law.

To me, these ones are unique because of how massive are the implications of the entire situation. But then, it is a unique situation to begin with, so...

 

_____

 

Edward Pentin just posted an interview he was granted with Cardinal Burke. I highly recommend reading it in its entirety - it is not very long. I will paste a couple sections which I think add something extra to this discussion. One part in particular (it will be obvious which part) is gravely important to note and keep in mind.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-on-amoris-laetitia-dubia-tremendous-division-warrants-action

 

Without the clarification you are seeking, are you saying, therefore, that this and other teaching inAmoris Laetitia go against the law of non-contradiction (which states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time when dealing with the same context)?

Of course, because, for instance, if you take the marriage issue, the Church teaches that marriage is indissoluble, in accord with the word of Christ, “He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” Therefore, if you are divorced, you may not enter a marital relationship with another person unless the indissoluble bond to which you are bound is declared to be null, to be nonexistent. But if we say, well, in certain cases, a person living in an irregular marriage union can receive holy Communion, then one of two things has to be the case: Either marriage really is not indissoluble — as for instance, in the kind of “enlightenment theory” of Cardinal [Walter] Kasper, who holds that marriage is an ideal to which we cannot realistically hold people. In such a case, we have lost the sense of the grace of the sacrament, which enables the married to live the truth of their marriage covenant — or holy Communion is not communion with the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course, neither of those two is possible. They contradict the constant teachings of the Church from the beginning and, therefore, cannot be true.

 

And the Petrine ministry, too, whose primary purpose is unity?

Yes, as the Second Vatican Council says, the Pope is the foundation of the unity of the bishops and of all the faithful. This idea, for instance, that the Pope should be some kind of innovator, who is leading a revolution in the Church or something similar, is completely foreign to the Office of Peter. The Pope is a great servant of the truths of the faith, as they’ve been handed down in an unbroken line from the time of the apostles.

 

Some might argue that you are only four cardinals, among whom you’re the only one who is not retired, and this is not very representative of the entire Church. In that case, they might ask: Why should the Pope listen and respond to you?

Well, numbers aren’t the issue. The issue is the truth. In the trial of St. Thomas More, someone told him that most of the English bishops had accepted the king’s order, but he said that may be true, but the saints in heaven did not accept it. That’s the point here. I would think that even though other cardinals did not sign this, they would share the same concern. But that doesn’t bother me. Even if we were one, two or three, if it’s a question of something that’s true and is essential to the salvation of souls, then it needs to be said.

 

What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s teaching that you hope to achieve?

Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error.

 

In a conflict between ecclesial authority and the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which one is binding on the believer and who has the authority to determine this?

What’s binding is the Tradition. Ecclesial authority exists only in service of the Tradition. I think of that passage of St. Paul in the [Letter to the] Galatians (1:8), that if “even an angel should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.”

 

If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?

It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[Nihil Obstat]

If I might be forgiven for musing a little...

There is, obviously, debate on the hypothetical possibility of an heretical pope. It is typically a purely theoretical debate, except for the existence of pockets of sedevacantism. And what the current sedevacantists do not understand is that a pope qua the papacy cannot be judged to be a heretic. But statements that a pope makes can be judged qua statements. It is an accidental feature that the pope was the one who made them. Same goes for documents. If a pope were to be judged heretical, first the heretical statement/document would have to be examined independently, the pope would have to be invited to clarify or retract the errors found therein. The traditional conclusion here is that if the pope refused to retract an error, he would for that precise reason be considered deposed from the papacy, not by the episcopate or the cardinalate, because they do not have the competency to do so, but by Christ Himself, as an heretic cannot be pope. At that point the college of cardinals would have the competency to declare the deposition and take appropriate further steps, but they do not themselves administer the deposition. That is the short version, anyway. One short version. There is some debate on the finer points. But it's a hypothetical exercise that has never (thank God) been fully explored in practice. Closest we came was John XXII, and he did recant.

That is the theoretical underpinning at work.

I was thinking about this today with relation to what we are hearing with regards to the dubia and Cardinal Burke's subsequent statements. What strikes me is that if there were some kind of inclination to go down the path which I described theoretically, the submission of these dubia is the most logical first step. And we see in that interview that a formal correction is not out of the realm of possibility. That is huge.

By saying this I am not saying that any person should do any specific thing, I am not saying I wish to see a pope deposed. And I am most certainly not calling Pope Francis an heretic or saying that Amoris Laetitia is an heretical document. But it seems to me that it is a fact that we are a small step closer to seeing such a possibility than we have been in many generations. That is a sobering thought. Pray for the pope.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[Jack4]

6 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

No, there have been some in the past that were interesting for a variety of reasons.

Agree. Even I (now 16) knew of dubia.

3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

There is, obviously, debate on the hypothetical possibility of an heretical pope.

...

...Pray for the pope.

I second this. See also my post quoting Mar Schneider http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/143500-pope-francis-continues-to-denigrate-traditionalists/?do=findComment&comment=2777111

 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

6 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

There is, obviously, debate on the hypothetical possibility of an heretical pope.

There is supposed to be a heretical pope according to the apparition of Our Lady of La Salette.  Pope Francis is not he.  You will know by his fruits.  

So Pope Francis is not as great as St. Benedict XVI the Great it doesn't mean he is the heretic.  Jesus said be more worried about being clean on the inside than out.

 

Also, just because he doesn't support the sedavacants doesn't mean it is he.  Indeed, it would imply the opposite.

Also, just because he's behind on his paperwork because he's out "being Christ" doesn't mean he's a heretic.