Jump to content
KnightofChrist

FILIAL CORRECTION of Pope Francis

Recommended Posts

KnightofChrist

SUMMARY OF THE “FILIAL CORRECTION”

A 25-page letter signed by 40 Catholic clergy and lay scholars was delivered to Pope Francis on August 11th. Since no answer was received from the Holy Father, it is being made public today, 24th September, Feast of Our Lady of Ransom and of Our Lady of Walsingham. The letter, which is open to new signatories, now has the names of 62 clergy and lay scholars from 20 countries, who also represent others lacking the necessary freedom of speech. It has a Latin title: ‘Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis’ (literally, ‘A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies’). It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church. These 7 heresies are expressed by the signatories in Latin, the official language of the Church.

This letter of correction has 3 main parts. In the first part, the signatories explain why, as believing and practising Catholics, they have the right and duty to issue such a correction to the supreme pontiff. Church law itself requires that competent persons not remain silent when the pastors of the Church are misleading the flock. This involves no conflict with the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, since the Church teaches that a pope must meet strict criteria before his utterances can be considered infallible. Pope Francis has not met these criteria. He has not declared these heretical positions to be definitive teachings of the Church, or stated that Catholics must believe them with the assent of faith. The Church teaches no pope can claim that God has revealed some new truth to him, which it would be obligatory for Catholics to believe.

The second part of the letter is the essential one, since it contains the ‘Correction’ properly speaking. It lists the passages of Amoris laetitia in which heretical positions are insinuated or encouraged, and then it lists words, deeds, and omissions of Pope Francis which make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that he wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical. In particular, the pope has directly or indirectly countenanced the beliefs that obedience to God’s Law can be impossible or undesirable, and that the Church should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a practising Catholic.

The final part, called ‘Elucidation’, discusses two causes of this unique crisis. One cause is ‘Modernism’. Theologically speaking, Modernism is the belief that God has not delivered definite truths to the Church, which she must continue to teach in exactly the same sense until the end of time. Modernists hold that God communicates to mankind only experiences., which human beings can reflect on, so as to make various statements about God, life and religion; but such statements are only provisional, never fixed dogmas. Modernism was condemned by Pope St Pius X at the start of the 20th century, but it revived in the middle of the century. The great and continuing confusion caused in the Catholic Church by Modernism obliges the signatories to describe the true meaning of ‘faith’, ‘heresy’, ‘revelation’, and ‘magisterium’.

A second cause of the crisis is the apparent influence of the ideas of Martin Luther on Pope Francis. The letter shows how Luther, the founder of Protestantism, had ideas on marriage, divorce, forgiveness, and divine law which correspond to those which the pope has promoted by word, deed and omission. It also notes the explicit and unprecedented praise given by Pope Francis to the German heresiarch.

The signatories do not venture to judge the degree of awareness with which Pope Francis has propagated the 7 heresies which they list. But they respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld.

The signatories profess their loyalty to the holy Roman Church, assure the pope of their prayers, and ask for his apostolic blessing.

VIEW HERE THE DOCUMENT

http://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English.pdf

Source: http://www.correctiofilialis.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anastasia (L&T)

I was about to post this aticle on it that has a summary of the issues. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/breaking-62-scholars-correct-pope-francis-for-propagating-heresies

Does this matter to the average lay people?

Do you think anything will happen (other than a few media presuming the Church gives the OK for very liberal actions)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McM RSCJ

I think it unfortunate, at best, the authors, whoever they are, do not publicize their names--and do not even offer text that explains why.   Other adjectives that come to my mind are "cowardly" and "deceptive."

One press contact is given, the email for a Dr. Joseph Shaw who serves as a tutor in Moral Philosophy in St. Benet's Hall where their website claims fifty students.  Are the authors hoping that hundreds now are going to find their words and sign on? 

So I find myself concluding (unless I learn otherwise from a more forthcoming publication) that some small group somewhere decided it is up to them to "set straight" Pope Francis and the overwhelming majority of the Bishops in Synod.  

(Perhaps, Knight of Christ, you know whose these folks are?  Perhaps you are an author or a signatory?) 

I read the document to become informed.  To be surprise, I found ample citation from Amoris Laetitia --so I was able to reread passages that continue to lift my spirit and enlarge my heart by offering a vision of the Gospel and a Christ of Mercy and forgiveness.  

(I guess the authors believe I should find those passages disturbing and heretical?  I don't.)

But the rest of the text (presumably their own words) I find odd, dictatorial, unconvincing, and mean-spirited.  I am sorry the authors find themselves (their lives?  their energies?) trapped in past theoretical battles over "Modernism" and Counter-Reformation vestiges concerning Martin Luther.  For the harvest is plentiful and laborers are few, so the Gospel imperatives, to look to the horizons, roll up sleeves, be sent into today's fields and plunge right in is stronger than ever.

I also do not know any Catholics caught up in the "confusion" these anonymous authors insist is the result Amoris Laetitia.  On the contrary, I have heard of priests who find it a tremendous gift and pastoral resource in working with young persons considering marriage.  The whole enterprise (including the Dubia) strikes me as a small tempest in a very small theological teapot. 

Edited by McM RSCJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist

I'm just going to ignore the personal attacks on the signers and hope for constructive discussion on the context of the document. It may be that I die waiting for that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McM RSCJ

The names of the signers are published.

But I cannot find the names of the authors.  Truthfinder, if you have seen the names of the authors, may I ask if you could post the link?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truthfinder
8 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

The names of the signers are published.

But I cannot find the names of the authors.  Truthfinder, if you have seen the names of the authors, may I ask if you could post the link?

 

My apologies, sister. I misread what you wrote. Indeed I don't know who the authors are. However, what I do know, is that with the exception of Bp. Fellay, all the signers were on the document when it when to Rome in July. As with other open letters, they may all feel to be equally authors (I mean do we really know the Pope's ghostwriters for some of his documents?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257

am i correct in understanding one of the main or the main person leading this writing is an SSPX priest?

Edited by havok579257

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257
1 minute ago, KnightofChrist said:

An SSPX bishop and a priest, yes.

so how much stock should we put into what this bishop and priest says since they themselves are not in line with the one holy and true catholic church?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist
Just now, havok579257 said:

so how much stock should we put into what this bishop and priest says since they themselves are not in line with the one holy and true catholic church?

As much shock that I have seeing that people here and elsewhere on the internet can only attack the persons of those that signed the document. SSPX is not is schism, are Catholics within the Catholic Church. 

Anyone want to actually discuss the context of the document or nah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257
Just now, KnightofChrist said:

As much shock that I have seeing that people here and elsewhere on the internet can only attack the persons of those that signed the document. SSPX is not is schism, are Catholics within the Catholic Church. 

Anyone want to actually discuss the context of the document or nah?

i am not attacking anyone else who signed on the the letter.  i am just talking about those who belong to the SSPX.  Those priests and bishops are not in full communion with rome and are leading people astray.  So I take anything they say with a grain of salt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truthfinder
14 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

An SSPX bishop and a priest, yes.

Now I'm the one asking for documentation. The understanding I've seen from Rorate is that Bp Fellay only signed this document after it was initially submitted to Rome, and therefor is one of the last signers and it would be difficult to construe as one of the main 'pushers' of the document. Although, I don't think the SSPX have been shy in their criticism of AL or recent other happenings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257

as it pertains to the letter, i don't understand where the pope has said "In particular, the pope has directly or indirectly countenanced the beliefs that obedience to God’s Law can be impossible or undesirable, and that the Church should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a practising Catholic" in the article.  Maybe I am missing something but I am not seeing it.

 

also are they trying to say Pope Francis is a supporter of Martin Luther's ideas and follows his views?  I'm confused.

 

also who are these priests, bishops and/or cardinals who have rebuked marital law and natural law and been favored by Francis as the letter states?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McM RSCJ

To Truthfinder:

Thank you. 

Actually I see the significance between receiving a list signatories versus a list of authors differently than you do. While you are correct that we don't receive a published list of those Staffers who worked with Pope Francis on the text of Amoris Laetitia, or Laudato Si, or Evangelii Gaudium, we don't need such a list because Pope Francis publicly proclaims himself the author.  (It is also easily possible to get a list of the Staffers who work on a particular document.)  

This text of "Filial Correction" does not proclaim any author (that I can see).  You might be correct that the Signatories are themselves the authors but:  1) It is really hard to write a group text; 2) If the Signatories are intending to claim authorship, then it does not make sense they are now asking others to sign on, after the authoring is complete.

So, for me, the text reads as anonymous.  And I never think I am obligated to read--never mind take seriously-- the words of a person or group of persons who won't stand up and take credit for his/her/their text. 

 

To Knight of Christ:

I did read the text however.  And, naturally, like any reader with an active intellect, I take in what I read while engaging what I read.  So--perhaps in error--I conclude this author, or these authors, is/are unduly invested in counteracting "modernism" and any appreciation whatsoever for Martin Luther (in this 500th year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.  I have no idea why he/she/they decided this "Elucidation" belongs in a criticism of Amoris Laetitia.  I know you want "discussion" of the text, but since I am not able to follow the logic of including this elucidation, my "discussion" is limited to acknowledging that.  Perhaps the unknown author(s) think they made the links clear in the text.  

As for the claims made in the text before the "Elucidation," I already said I find the passages quoted from Amoris Laetitia sing out the Gospel.  The passages the author(s) want me to find so troubling actually lift up my heart.

I believe Jesus, in the Gospel, sets before us the ideal of faithful and indissoluble marriage.  I also believe God is Love and Mercy, while all of us are sinners.  So I do not believe that God excludes from Mercy and Communion those who falter in the ideal.  When Jesus in the Gospel proclaims that what God has joined together no human being should put asunder (Matt 19:6), he is "protecting" a couple from those who would interfere, including parents, or religion teachers, or those with class or property or race or national interests at heart or one spouse who bewails infertility. . . etc.  And that's critically important.  But I do not think it follows that those who enter into a marriage and then fail at it are thereby "unforgivable" and excluded from the Sacraments.   Nor do I think that one when spouse abandons the other, the abandoned one must live in solitary misery in order to remain a full communicant in the Church.  

Think of all the priests who were ordained "forever" in the Order of Melchisidek who left their priesthood.  They are not excluded from the Eucharist or the Church.  Think of all the women and men Religious who leave after Perpetual Profession.  They are not excluded from Eucharist or the Church.  Why is it that celibate Priests lay this heavy burden on young marrieds who often do not know what they are getting into.  Why not, as Pope Francis, says in AL, accompany those young persons as they make sense of what happened in their lives and how they are to move forward in life and in love and in commitment. Why would "pastors" be all too willing to lay on them the cross of living without family?  And when a new love and new life comes into the wounded sinner's story, why not begin by assuming God has been at work in this blessing?  

And finally I believe that the Spirit of God acts in all times and all places.  "Lo, I am doing something new?  Can you not perceive it?"  Isaiah 43.   So I, at least, perceive the Spirit acting in the Synod and in Amoris Laetitia.   You don't?  

The anonymous author or authors of this text disagree with me.  I do not accept, however, that I am thereby a "heretic," because I do not accept their dictat of what a Catholic trying to follow Jesus Christ must believe about revelation being closed and complete in the way they think that must be understood.  

Fyi, I am not anonymous on this website.  Those are my initials and my Religious Order.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257
47 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

To Truthfinder:

Thank you. 

Actually I see the significance between receiving a list signatories versus a list of authors differently than you do. While you are correct that we don't receive a published list of those Staffers who worked with Pope Francis on the text of Amoris Laetitia, or Laudato Si, or Evangelii Gaudium, we don't need such a list because Pope Francis publicly proclaims himself the author.  (It is also easily possible to get a list of the Staffers who work on a particular document.)  

This text of "Filial Correction" does not proclaim any author (that I can see).  You might be correct that the Signatories are themselves the authors but:  1) It is really hard to write a group text; 2) If the Signatories are intending to claim authorship, then it does not make sense they are now asking others to sign on, after the authoring is complete.

So, for me, the text reads as anonymous.  And I never think I am obligated to read--never mind take seriously-- the words of a person or group of persons who won't stand up and take credit for his/her/their text. 

 

To Knight of Christ:

I did read the text however.  And, naturally, like any reader with an active intellect, I take in what I read while engaging what I read.  So--perhaps in error--I conclude this author, or these authors, is/are unduly invested in counteracting "modernism" and any appreciation whatsoever for Martin Luther (in this 500th year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.  I have no idea why he/she/they decided this "Elucidation" belongs in a criticism of Amoris Laetitia.  I know you want "discussion" of the text, but since I am not able to follow the logic of including this elucidation, my "discussion" is limited to acknowledging that.  Perhaps the unknown author(s) think they made the links clear in the text.  

As for the claims made in the text before the "Elucidation," I already said I find the passages quoted from Amoris Laetitia sing out the Gospel.  The passages the author(s) want me to find so troubling actually lift up my heart.

I believe Jesus, in the Gospel, sets before us the ideal of faithful and indissoluble marriage.  I also believe God is Love and Mercy, while all of us are sinners.  So I do not believe that God excludes from Mercy and Communion those who falter in the ideal.  When Jesus in the Gospel proclaims that what God has joined together no human being should put asunder (Matt 19:6), he is "protecting" a couple from those who would interfere, including parents, or religion teachers, or those with class or property or race or national interests at heart or one spouse who bewails infertility. . . etc.  And that's critically important.  But I do not think it follows that those who enter into a marriage and then fail at it are thereby "unforgivable" and excluded from the Sacraments.   Nor do I think that one when spouse abandons the other, the abandoned one must live in solitary misery in order to remain a full communicant in the Church.  

Think of all the priests who were ordained "forever" in the Order of Melchisidek who left their priesthood.  They are not excluded from the Eucharist or the Church.  Think of all the women and men Religious who leave after Perpetual Profession.  They are not excluded from Eucharist or the Church.  Why is it that celibate Priests lay this heavy burden on young marrieds who often do not know what they are getting into.  Why not, as Pope Francis, says in AL, accompany those young persons as they make sense of what happened in their lives and how they are to move forward in life and in love and in commitment. Why would "pastors" be all too willing to lay on them the cross of living without family?  And when a new love and new life comes into the wounded sinner's story, why not begin by assuming God has been at work in this blessing?  

And finally I believe that the Spirit of God acts in all times and all places.  "Lo, I am doing something new?  Can you not perceive it?"  Isaiah 43.   So I, at least, perceive the Spirit acting in the Synod and in Amoris Laetitia.   You don't?  

The anonymous author or authors of this text disagree with me.  I do not accept, however, that I am thereby a "heretic," because I do not accept their dictat of what a Catholic trying to follow Jesus Christ must believe about revelation being closed and complete in the way they think that must be understood.  

Fyi, I am not anonymous on this website.  Those are my initials and my Religious Order.  

are you saying you believe against the church doctrine that its mortally sinful to divorce and remarry someone?  maybe i misinterpreted what you wrote above but that is how i am reading it.  i am confused by what your saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seven77
6 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

I am speaking about Christ's desire and the Church's power to forgive grievous sin.

But forgiveness is not the same as making something unlawful lawful. Correct? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×