Dubia Submitted to the Holy Father

[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.

[Nihil Obstat]

8 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

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.

Please point out where I called Pope Francis an heretic. Go ahead, I will wait; point it out.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

If you are willing to wait, let me go back and read what you wrote.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

While you are looking, I will give everyone else here a juicy spoiler: you will not find it, because it is not there.

[Nihil Obstat]

Still waiting.

[Jack4]

49 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

You will know by his fruits.

We should be careful while analyzing his fruits. God can bring out good even from evil. (though that doesn't justify the evil itself)

52 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

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 sedevacantists 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.

Q1. Can you explain how the underlined sentences justify the paragraphs in which they occur?  

Q2. Which Pope supported sedevacantists? No, Pope Benedict didn't. SSPX are not sedevacantist. 

 

 

PS: We can bear Pope Francis' ambiguities and he "being behind on his paperwork". He is not the first Pope to be so.

The problem is that a footnote in AL might be heretic. 

"Being heretic" is not "being Christ", it is being against Christ and hating His Truth. 

Hence we should pray for the Pope, that he did love Christ. 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Jack4

[<3 PopeFrancis]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

While you are looking, I will give everyone else here a juicy spoiler: you will not find it, because it is not there.

Ok  I don't actually have to read it

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Please do not do that again. Accusing a pope of being a formal heretic is a Big Deal, and if I ever were to do so it would not be so casually.

Not to mention I would probably find myself banned from this site.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

@Jack4, you sound like a sweet lamb.  However, I'm really trying to be tolerant and I am actually having a good day.  The things you point out I already know, but I am really glad that you know it. The points I made were based on past discussions with Nihil before you came onto the forum.  I'm glad you are here, you bring a fresh perspective to the average college age posters and are knowledgeable about the ways of Christ.  

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

Please do not do that again. Accusing a pope of being a formal heretic is a Big Deal, and if I ever were to do so it would not be so casually.

Yeah I'm glad.  It's a big deal to me, too.

[Socrates]

21 hours 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.

Yeah, I first thought it was referring to the 43rd US president.

[Jack4]

18 hours ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

 

@Jack4, you sound like a sweet lamb... I am really glad that you know [the things you point out]. ...  I'm glad you are here, you bring a fresh perspective to the average college age posters and are knowledgeable about the ways of Christ.  

 

Thank you!                    .   

 

Quote

However, I'm really trying to be tolerant and I am actually having a good day.

If I might say so,... well... I respectfully disagree. There is a difference between the tones of your "wat" post and this one which I quote. 

Also, if I might say so,... well... γνῶθι σεαυτὸν

[<3 PopeFrancis]

My tolerance has reached it's limit.  It is time to put virtue of moderation in effect.

Good-bye.

To @Nihil Obstat:  Though clever written, the implications of your Dubia (whatever that is) are clear.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

12 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

My tolerance has reached it's limit.  It is time to put virtue of moderation in effect.

Good-bye.

To @Nihil Obstat:  Though clever written, the implications of your Dubia (whatever that is) are clear.

 

I am flattered, but it is my sad duty to inform you that I am not Cardinals Burke, Brandmuller, Caffarra, or Meisner. They are, in fact, their dubia. I have also heard reports that other cardinals and bishops were involved, but did not wish to make their names public.

[Jack4]

@<3 PopeFrancis, 

if  you are reading this, can you explain your comments re: 

Popes and fruits 

Popes and being clean on the inside 

Popes and sedevacantists.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Jack4

[Amppax]

On 11/16/2016 at 1:00 AM, 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.

*quietly raises hand.* 

I also have a masters in theology, and have done a lot of study on early 20th century neo-Thomism, when this word was thrown around quite a bit.

[PhuturePriest]

So, after cancelling his meeting with cardinals (of which there is precedent for), Pope Francis proceeded to have an interview with a paper about the Dubia and decried legalism.

I love the Holy Father, but unless anyone can provide a solid insight or missing factor, I'm afraid this is just petty. The cardinals were simply asking for a clarification. There's no need to humiliate them in a paper and essentially call them pharisees after you've refused to speak with them.