Cardinal Muller: no need to clarify Amoris Laetitia [CC]

[Wandile]

You use the h word a lot. It sounds like you are accusing Cardinal Mueller of heresy. I guess that is your prerogative, but it puts your opinion outside what I care to consider, as he is speaking for the Pope.

I actually don’t think Cardinal Müller is a heretic hey. He has taught many times that only the “traditional” i.e. Catholic understanding can be the teaching of the church. He taught this before, during and after the synods of 2014 and 2015. He now has reaffirmed that belief but he is clearly contradicting those who have a more heterodox and honestly heretical interpretation of the document.

iI had enough of people accusing the pope of heresy back when it was Pope John Paul II. Ironically, a lot of the same radical traditionalists that accused Pope John Paul II of heresy hold him up today as a paragon of orthodoxy.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Pope St John Paul II was a good man and was definitely a Saint but he did do some disturbing stuff like kissing the Qur’an and praying with non-Catholics (Something forbidden in the Church since the beginning at least until after Vatican II).

Notice people who hold up the teaching of Pope St John Paul IIs familioris Consortio are branded today as Pharisees. Even his teaching today is too conservative for the liberals today.

 

[pnewton]

I
Notice people who hold up the teaching of Pope St John Paul IIs familioris Consortio are branded today as Pharisees. Even his teaching today is too conservative for the liberals today.

He was always orthodox, as is Pope Francis. Like St. John Paul, it may take a few decades of perspective to understand this.

 

[Thomas_White]

This wasn’t a definition taught ex cathedral at all. The only to times in recent history this has happened is the Papp proclamations of Munificentismus dues and Inefibilis Deus. Again I read the document and nowhere does it teach doctrinal development is a dogma. Honestly asking, do you know what a dogma is?

Huh? It is the 1965 Dogmatic Constitution ‘Dei Verbum’ that is dogma.

 

[jeannetherese]

Neither. What I meant by “either way” was that whether or not AL permits communion for those in “irregular marriages”, it will not affect my Catholic faith–not anymore than what Cardinal Kasper has referred to as a “virtual schism” given the vast numbers of Catholics who have rejected Humanae Vitae during the past half century but have nevertheless continued to receive communion.

I can see I should have made this clearer.

Thanks so much for the clarification. May God bless you and all who visit this thread.
Amen.

 

[Wandile]

I could ask the same thing of everyone. (hint: it is the root of the word “dogmatic”,as in a dogmatic constitution issued by the universal Church meeting in council, from Jerusalem, to and through Vatican II, as the part that was quoted.

When the Church speaks in council and claims it dogmatic, that really should not be debated.

Okay I urge everybody to consult church history especially on Vatican II.

The dogmatic constitution De Verbum was a reaffirmation of a dogmatic proposition I.e. Something already defined as dogmatic. That proposition was “the truth of scripture”. Doctrinal development Has never ever been defined as dogmatic so Vatican II could not teach it as dogmatic , nor did it. Vatican II was a pastoral council and didn’t define anything dogmatically. It only reaffirmed established dogmatic positions. Doctrinal development, as I said earlier, has never been defined by a Pope or previous dogmatic council for Vatican II to teach it as dogmatic.

See the problem here is not De Verbum but rather your reading of the document. In dogmatic pronouncements and the documents that’s detail the dogmatic constitutions, it is necissary to know which dogma is being spoken of. Not everything in the document is dogma. See the decree on the immaculate conception for example which is a long document but the dogma itself is only a few lines in that document

Further :

Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

Pope Paul VI: "The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

 

[Wandile]

Huh? It is the 1965 Dogmatic Constitution ‘Dei Verbum’ that is dogma.

See my post before this one for explanation

 

[Wandile]

Please forgive my typos. I’m replying from my phone right now and the “autocorrect” really doesn’t correct anything but makes things worse lol

 

[Wandile]

Additionally Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI):

"Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. …] The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” (Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988)

 

[JPUSC]

For raising concerns? Were you there? Try reading your own posts and see how you justify, rationalize, and re-paint everything and anything to promote this very sad situation in the Church. Really? That’s all the priest did? Do you know what he was telling the faithful? Tell us a little more about it.

Hat’s off to the Bishop of Pereira, Colombia, Monseñor Rigoberto Corredor .:tiphat: The priest needs to be in communion with the Pope in order to be in communion with the Church? Didn’t you know that? Perhaps, the priest will join Cardinal Burke when he declares himself head of his schism.

It would seem as though Cardinal Burke and his followers have ex-communicated themselves. However, the Pope is not using his authority to declare it so. Pope Francis is patient and a man of prayer - a servant of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, Cardinal Burke, who was not invited to the second synod - because it’s his way or the highway; tried to corner the Holy Father into stating what he wanted him to say in his Quinque Insidias (Five Traps for the Holy Father). When the Holy Father did not dignify his disrespect; he went public and tried to gather more followers. In the beginning of December he said that no schism was a threat , by the 23rd of the December " And if it’s not clarified soon, it could develop into a formal schism." Cardinal Burke claims that he is not calling the Pope a heretic but that is exactly what he has done. Cardinal Burke said that he read the book published from the synod even though he did not participate. Oh, dear, I have read a lot of books I did not contribute to, I don’t just think my own writing is worthy of my attention. He needs to work on humility and obedience. I hope people stop following him and continue to follow Pope Francis; Pope Francis is the real Pope.

If my Bishop supported Cardinal Burke, I would move from my diocese as I want to be in communion with my priest, who is in communion with the my Bishop who is in communion with the Pope.

A lot of sentiments for the priest who was misguiding the faithfuls and abandoned his parish without notifying the Bishop. Do you have any ‘sentiments’ for the eternal salvation of souls?

Oh please.

 

[Ginny89]

Okay I urge everybody to consult church history especially on Vatican II.

The dogmatic constitution De Verbum was a reaffirmation of a dogmatic proposition I.e. Something already defined as dogmatic. That proposition was “the truth of scripture”. Doctrinal development Has never ever been defined as dogmatic so Vatican II could not teach it as dogmatic , nor did it. Vatican II was a pastoral council and didn’t define anything dogmatically. It only reaffirmed established dogmatic positions. Doctrinal development, as I said earlier, has never been defined by a Pope or previous dogmatic council for Vatican II to teach it as dogmatic.

See the problem here is not De Verbum but rather your reading of the document. In dogmatic pronouncements and the documents that’s detail the dogmatic constitutions, it is necissary to know which dogma is being spoken of. Not everything in the document is dogma. See the decree on the immaculate conception for example which is a long document but the dogma itself is only a few lines in that document

Further :

Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

Pope Paul VI: "The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

Thank you! I knew Pope Benedict said clearlt that there was no declaration of dogma in Vatican II but wasnt willing to dig out the quote.

 

[Ginny89]

It would seem as though Cardinal Burke and his followers have ex-communicated themselves. However, the Pope is not using his authority to declare it so. Pope Francis is patient and a man of prayer - a servant of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, Cardinal Burke, who was not invited to the second synod - because it’s his way or the highway; tried to corner the Holy Father into stating what he wanted him to say in his Quinque Insidias (Five Traps for the Holy Father). When the Holy Father did not dignify his disrespect; he went public and tried to gather more followers. In the beginning of December he said that no schism was a threat , by the 23rd of the December " And if it’s not clarified soon, it could develop into a formal schism." Cardinal Burke claims that he is not calling the Pope a heretic but that is exactly what he has done. Cardinal Burke said that he read the book published from the synod even though he did not participate. Oh, dear, I have read a lot of books I did not contribute to, I don’t just think my own writing is worthy of my attention. He needs to work on humility and obedience. I hope people stop following him and continue to follow Pope Francis; Pope Francis is the real Pope.

If my Bishop supported Cardinal Burke, I would move from my diocese as I want to be in communion with my priest, who is in communion with the my Bishop who is in communion with the Pope.

A lot of sentiments for the priest who was misguiding the faithfuls and abandoned his parish without notifying the Bishop. Do you have any ‘sentiments’ for the eternal salvation of souls?

A few seconds ago Democrats thought they would rule America forever and that deplorable Republicans were finished. Things change so fast in this world. People who feel they own the church and are quick to throw others out might find themselves in a very different situation in a short while, who knows? Let those who call for humility in others practice it themselves.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Don’t know what is making me cringe more….the manner you address a fellow Christian or your likening original sin to mortal sin. .

Where did I say Original sin was mortal sin?

My small point was that God intended original justice for Adam and his descendants.
Yet, due to the moral fault of Adam we, who committed no moral fault, lost that justice.
We also inherited a wound - which suggests even what belongs to us by nature was damaged.
One of the effects of Adam’s original sin therefore is that we entered a “state of mortal sin” though we committed no personal act of mortal sin.

Hence “sin” is wider in scope than simply speaking of voluntary evils, it also speaks of involuntary evils.

A state of mortal sin as we all know means a person is without sanctifying grace and the soul is like a dead, paralysed body, completely unable to do anything for itself to remedy the situation.

Never heard of “innocent sin”

You do not believe it is never possible to engage in behaviour of grave matter that is fully non imputable - even re adultery? Are you sure?

As moral theologians are want to say “A man may commit what is adultery yet not as an adulterer”.

Mortal or deadly sin is a willful, grievous offence against the law of God. It deprives the sinner of grace, makes it an enemy of God, takes away merit of all good actions, deprives it of right to everlasting happiness in heaven, and makes it deserving of everlasting punishment in hell.

You make the usual mistake of not distinguishing an act of mortal sin from a state of mortal sin.

Hence two different persons can end up in a state of mortal sin, one by “commission” of the act (an actual, voluntary personal mortal sin) and another by “contraction” (they are innocent victims put in that state by another who acts mortally).

Now both on death will be deprived of the Vision of God (unless God intervenes in some way) but because the latter are innocent they will not actually suffer in hell as you state above. Traditionally we say they will at least be in the top level of hades (as was Abraham) commonly called “limbo”, a sort of natural paradise. Thus the fate of unbaptised babies who contracted a state of mortal sin from Adam.

Nowadays of course we believe God may well intervene for such innocents and somehow determine if they should see heaven instead.

 

[Stat_Crux]

For raising concerns? Were you there? Try reading your own posts and see how you justify, rationalize, and re-paint everything and anything to promote this very sad situation in the Church. Really? That’s all the priest did? Do you know what he was telling the faithful? Tell us a little more about it.

Hat’s off to the Bishop of Pereira, Colombia, Monseñor Rigoberto Corredor .:tiphat: The priest needs to be in communion with the Pope in order to be in communion with the Church? Didn’t you know that? Perhaps, the priest will join Cardinal Burke when he declares himself head of his schism.

It would seem as though Cardinal Burke and his followers have ex-communicated themselves. However, the Pope is not using his authority to declare it so. Pope Francis is patient and a man of prayer - a servant of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, Cardinal Burke, who was not invited to the second synod - because it’s his way or the highway; tried to corner the Holy Father into stating what he wanted him to say in his Quinque Insidias (Five Traps for the Holy Father). When the Holy Father did not dignify his disrespect; he went public and tried to gather more followers. In the beginning of December he said that no schism was a threat , by the 23rd of the December " And if it’s not clarified soon, it could develop into a formal schism." Cardinal Burke claims that he is not calling the Pope a heretic but that is exactly what he has done. Cardinal Burke said that he read the book published from the synod even though he did not participate. Oh, dear, I have read a lot of books I did not contribute to, I don’t just think my own writing is worthy of my attention. He needs to work on humility and obedience. I hope people stop following him and continue to follow Pope Francis; Pope Francis is the real Pope.

If my Bishop supported Cardinal Burke, I would move from my diocese as I want to be in communion with my priest, who is in communion with the my Bishop who is in communion with the Pope.

A lot of sentiments for the priest who was misguiding the faithfuls and abandoned his parish without notifying the Bishop. Do you have any ‘sentiments’ for the eternal salvation of souls?

See, now this is the point at which your very own previous call for unity, peace and charity in this debate breaks down. I’m sorry, but you’re far too quick to state that anyone who doesn’t immediately agree with your personal interpretation (which it is, as no official interpretation of AL has been formally defined) “have ex-communicated themselves”.

So now you believe that to continue to follow the Church’s definitive teachings on the Sacraments of Marriage, Confession and the Eucharist as understood before 8 April 2016 when AL was published, or to interpret AL as a continuity of previous teaching, comes with the penalty of ex-communication? The Year of Mercy wasn’t that long ago.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, it should be obvious the reasons for requesting the clarifications… basically, to understand how Amoris Laetitia is to be interpreted in continuity with previous magisterial teachings on this matter.

Many of us here see that there are a number of solutions where continuity is not denied.
Strange how those Cardinals cannot see them if we laity can.

D’oh, I just realised… maybe they are covertly expressing their disagreement with Pope Francis’s new pastoral direction and initiating some sort of popularist groundswell to influence Pope Francis to withdraw.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Many of us here see that there are a number of solutions where continuity is not denied.
Strange how those Cardinals cannot see them if we laity can.

D’oh, I just realised… maybe they are covertly expressing their disagreement with Pope Francis’s new pastoral direction and initiating some sort of popularist groundswell to influence Pope Francis to withdraw.

I can see ways that AL can be applied in continuity, as can many others; Bishops and Priests included. Some of whom have already started to issue application guidance which presents AL perfectly in continuity with the context of the Catholic Church’s rich pastoral theology.

The debate is not about “AL itself”, but how to interpret it and which is the intended interpretation. While I can see how to interpret AL in an orthodox manner, I can see how one can arrive at several other interpretations with varying degrees of orthodoxy. I can even see how, based on the text of AL alone, one could interpret that it calls for the civilly divorced and remarried to receive Communion. However, if we look outside this one document at all of the other Magisterial teachings of the Church over the last 2,000 years, it has always said the polar opposite and even condemned that interpretation of AL. That’s not me trying to be harsh, but an interpretation of the data we have to work with when forming a conclusion.

If one Diocese says that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin which needs repentance to be absolved of and the Diocese next door says “carry on, no problems here”, how is that a unified presentation of our faith to the outside world? The Church is supposed to teach the path we must tread to save our souls, as Christ taught, but now apparently it turns out the Church has always been wrong and it’s apparently not important to not have sex outside of marriage. What does that say for all of the other moral commandments which the Church teaches are “essential”?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You left out (c) where one is correct and the other is wrong, which I believe is the case here.

You stated “they cannot both be correct” suggesting it must therefore be the case that one is right and one is wrong and there are no other possibilities
.
My small point is that your logic is not irrefutable, there actually are other hypotheses along with yours.
Just as the above two other valid possibilities suggest .

Of course yours is possible…but you give every impression any other hypothesis is impossible. Apologies if that was not what you were trying to say…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I can see ways that AL can be applied in continuity, as can many others; Bishops and Priests included. Some of whom have already started to issue application guidance which presents AL perfectly in continuity with the context of the Catholic Church’s rich pastoral theology.

The debate is not about “AL itself”, but how to interpret it and which is the intended interpretation. While I can see how to interpret AL in an orthodox manner, I can see how one can arrive at several other interpretations with varying degrees of orthodoxy. I can even see how, based on the text of AL alone, one could interpret that it calls for the civilly divorced and remarried to receive Communion. However, if we look outside this one document at all of the other Magisterial teachings of the Church over the last 2,000 years, it has always said the polar opposite and even condemned that interpretation of AL. That’s not me trying to be harsh, but an interpretation of the data we have to work with when forming a conclusion.

If one Diocese says that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin which needs repentance to be absolved of and the Diocese next door says “carry on, no problems here”, how is that a unified presentation of our faith to the outside world? The Church is supposed to teach the path we must tread to save our souls, as Christ taught, but now apparently it turns out the Church has always been wrong and it’s apparently not important to not have sex outside of marriage. What does that say for all of the other moral commandments which the Church teaches are “essential”?

That sounds like a really well balanced summary of the situation.

My only difference would be that I see no problem with the non homogenous outcome even at Diocesan level. There is no sin or approbrium for a diocese to apply AL opportunities differently than another if it is prudentially judged the community would not be ready to welcome or understand some of the more liberal possibilities allowed for by Rome.

It is not different from how a priest might react to different sinners with the same sin in a confessional or pastoral counselling situation. One size does not fit all for a Pastor (as opposed to a Canon Lawyer). This is a point Pope Francis highlighted in AL.

I think anyone who a few years pastoral experience under their belt knows that when we apply principles we must be harder on some and more easy on others when there is a range of legitimate solutions are possible.

 

[Stat_Crux]

That sounds like a really well balanced summary of the situation.

My only difference would be that I see no problem with the non homogenous outcome even at Diocesan level. There is no sin or approbrium for a diocese to apply AL opportunities differently than another if it is prudentially judged the community would not be ready to welcome or understand some of the more liberal possibilities allowed for by Rome.

It is not different from how a priest might react to different sinners with the same sin in a confessional or pastoral counselling situation. One size does not fit all for a Pastor (as opposed to a Canon Lawyer). This is a point Pope Francis highlighted in AL.

I think anyone who a few years pastoral experience under their belt knows that when we apply principles we must be harder on some and more easy on others when there is a range of legitimate solutions are possible.

I agree that Priests have to use pastoral judgment in the Confessional, but appropriate pastoral judgement based on good formation and teaching rather than their own beliefs.

The situation between a “normal” sin and the objective state and condition of one who is in a physical relationship to whom one is not married are not equivalent though. The sin is an offence against God, and the extra-marital relationship is a “lifestyle” if you will; one which can cause sin if one does not follow God’s commandments on the subject (e.g. by separating or live as brother and sister if sufficient grounds). So, to use a simple metaphor, a sin is an “effect” and an extra-marital relationship is a cause, so couldn’t be compared.

The problem here is that by admitting those sexually active remarried individuals to Communion, the Church would be legitimising this lifestyle and encouraging it to continue unchanged and without conversion. In effect, the Church de facto legitimising a sinful lifestyle.

We are all called to constant conversion and to grow in holiness. How would it happen with a hypothetical couple who engage in sexual activity outside of marriage? Would they be encouraged to eventually stop and live as brother and sister by being told, perhaps for several years, that their having sex was no impediment to the salvation of their souls? Where is the conversion? I praise the pastoral focus raised by AL, but that pastoral focus can’t become detached from belief or the Church’s teaching. Pastoral practice should bring somebody towards what God is asking, not away from it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But does AL necessarily contradict past Magisterial teachings? Here is an example: It seems that a significant issue that AL addresses is “manifest grave sin”, a concept I can’t see holding up to reasoned analysis. The current teaching is that those in manifest (or objective) grave sin should not be permitted to receive communion, and those in an “irregular” marriage are deemed to be in manifest grave sin for the reason of the irregular marriage alone. But this is a presumption. There are three conditions for a sin to be a mortal sin: its object must be grave matter, and it must be committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. How would “deliberate consent” be manifest? Or “full knowledge”? It would not be necessary to contradict the teaching about “manifest grave sin”. It could be developed to mean what it actually says: manifest–readily perceived by the eye; evident. As it is, the teaching has an unspoken subjective component.

OR your assumption that “grave sin” is the same as “mortal sin” (where mortal sin as you say must be both with full understanding and consent) is mistaken.

Have you wondered why the most recent Code and CCC changed the wording in this area from “mortal sin” to “grave sin”? Canon Lawyers and Moral Theologians do not make changes in important articles lightly.

Aquinas makes clear the severity of sin can be expressed in two different ways:
(a) by the degree of culpability (which clearly is about consent and understanding as in mortal sin)
(b) by the degree of evil in the material font (which is not about consent or understanding) as in “grave matter”

Now if the severity of the sin is to be “manifest” which meaning of “severity” do you think we are talking about?

That is why in this context I believe we have no choice but to interpret “grave sin” to mean public sins of grave matter…NOT “mortal sin”.

III,80,5: I answer that, As stated in the FS, Q[73], AA[3],6; SS, Q[73], A[3], one sin can be said to be graver than another in two ways: first of all essentially, secondly accidentally. (a) Essentially, in regard to its species, which is taken from its object: and so a sin is greater according as that against which it is committed is greater. …
(b) Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner’s part. for example, the sin which is the result of ignorance or of weakness is lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the same reason holds good of other circumstances. And according to this, the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them who from actual contempt and with consciousness of sin approach this sacrament: but in others it is less grave; for instance, in those who from fear of their sin being discovered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin…

III, 80,6: I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): “You were so kind as to consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church’s modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion.” But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord’s table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, “If
he who is called a brother among you,” etc., Augustine’s gloss remarks: “We cannot inhibit any
person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by
some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal.” Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can
privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord’s table,
until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after
repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially
in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: “Reconciliation
is not to be denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their
conversion to God.”

 

[Wandile]

There really is a disturbing trend amongst today’s more “liberal” Catholics. They seem to pretend as if the church, the bride of Christ, didn’t know what mercy was for 2000 years and only after pope Francis came along, did the church finally discover what mercy really is. Up until Pope Francis, the church was a merciless and pharisaical institute that sought to burden believers with rules because they were just being merciless legalists. In fact I just saw a debate recently where one liberal catholic apologist openly said the church was merciless in the past.

The church cannot be said to have been wrong on this issue for 2000 years because that would mean the Catholic Church is not the true church since it officially taught error dogmatically. Obviously then it logically has to be assumed that if the Church is the the true church and the pillar and foundation of the truth, then all that she has taught dogmatically as necissary for salvation, that includes the traditional interpretation of the indosllubility of marriage, must also be true. Any deviation, even slightly, is an error and the author of error is not God.

The second biggest problem with the liberal Catholics is the idolatry of the pope through an innocently misguided understanding of obedience to the Pope. It seems hat obedience to the pope comes first before obedience to God yet the pope is only the Vicar of God and not God himself. Blind obedience to the pope is never a good thing. If people blindly followed pope John XXII in his error the church would have taught something heretical and the gates of hell would have prevailed. However the promise of Christ remains true, and through the courage of a few university professors of theology, religious clerics and cardinals they resisted pope John XXIIs and formally corrected him until he recanted of his opinion before his death.

Another example of the dangers of blind obedience is the case of Pope Sixtus V who wished to publish and horribly erroneous translation of the Bible as the official inerrant bible to be used forever. Many were too scared to speak up and others supported the pope out of blind obedience. However , Cardinals like St Robert bellarmine who is now a doctor of the church and NOT Pope Sixtus V had the courage to speak up against the pope and desperately pleaded with the pope to let more competent men translate the Bible or rather leave the project entirely. The Pope refused and on the night before he was to promulgate dogmatically his translation as the definitive bible to be used the the church that is without error forever, he died through natural causes despite being of perfect health and mind that night. God intervened when the Pope would not listen to counsel by the brave cardinals. Thus, Our Lords promise remained true again.

The most famous case is one found scripture. When the first Pope St Peter, was discriminating against the gentiles and saying they are not clean and worthy enough to sit with the Jewish Christians, St Paul courageously resisted him to his face and Peter being humble, accepted the correction.

What people need to understand is that fraternal correction of a pope is NOT an act arrogance, it’s is an act of mercy and love. The four cardinals today principally seek an unambiguous explicit statement on what is the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. The Catholicity of the church is being destroyed through the multiple interpretations and rules being applied in different places. Additionally catholicity does not only relate to beings uniform with those in our present but with all believers of all time since the beginning for he church. A destruction of catholicity can never be tolerated because this would destroy one of the four marks of the church (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) and such a thing is not from Christ but from the devil. As such it’s is prudent and urgent that Pope Francis clarifies that the document means so that there is no confusion as scripture testifies confusion is from Satan.

If Pope Francis’s clarification contradicts church teaching which I has always been established truth, a formal correction as an act of love and mercy is necissary for the salvation of souls. We cannot tolerate heresy for the sake of emotions. The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions.

The problem is as Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said; a church that ignores doctrine for the sake of mercy is not a more merciful church, it is a more ignorant church. Souls will perish for this error.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Amen