"Filial correction"

[oppositeman13]

I think if you would read the document in section 2 where it outlines and gives specific instances of heretical teachings by Pope Francis, you would see that these points are clear and very well thought out and backed by scripture and official catholic teachings. I don’t think it can be dismissed easily.

 

[Saxum]

I don’t think it can be dismissed easily.

Past history leads me to believe that it’ll be ignored; and that people will run to defend the indefensible.

 

[oppositeman13]

it already has been ignored - I think it said that this was given to the pope in july and so they decided to go public. However, cardinal burke has spoken recently about the need for the formal correction to be done soon because of the harm done to souls. So, I think, when that happens it will be very serious.

 

[Saxum]

it already has been ignored - I think it said that this was given to the pope in july and so they decided to go public. However, cardinal burke has spoken recently about the need for the formal correction to be done soon because of the harm done to souls. So, I think, when that happens it will be very serious.

They will never be able to silence the Truth. I’m absolutely certain that history will take a negative view of Pope Francis because of his failure to reaffirm the doctrines of the Faith. Anybody who fails to see the crisis caused by AL is wilful closing his eyes to the obvious and will find himself on the wrong side of history.

 

[oppositeman13]

I agree - also if the pope continues with reforms, which it certainly seems likely, eventually at least some will get cold feet and rethink their support of him. And I think that it is very possible souls will end up in hell because they chose to believe wrongly where if this didn’t happen that would not be the case.

 

[Saxum]

I agree - also if the pope continues with reforms, which it certainly seems likely, eventually at least some will get cold feet and rethink their support of him

The ‘diabolical disorientation’ is too severe and the majority will follow the heresies being propagated by many Cardinals and Bishops. The same people who lived through the pontificate of John Paul II and who supported his interpretations of Vatican II and his reaffirmations of dogma at the time have now abandoned his teachings. I think this crisis will only end with Heavenly intervention: the Immaculate Heart will triumph and restore doctrinal clarity. Our Lady of Fatima told us ‘in Portugal the dogma of the Faith will be preserved.’ Therefore, we know that a remnant will survive - but it will be small. The crisis will only end when the Lord and his Mother have tested us all.

 

[Entwhistler]

I’m not a huge fan of Pope Francis and the farther we get into his Papacy the more I am wondering where he lands on Church theology. Of course, he is Pope, and I will always recognize that. However, this dubia thing. Why has he not answered? If he is truly conservative (which I doubt very much), why is he letting potential and actual confusion run about? Okay, so he’s slightly towards “center” on theological issues. Still, why has he not answered. It’s not like I’m asking. Four Cardinals are. Is Pope Francis thinking that it’s just not an issue? Well, if it wasn’t then it is now. Is he mad that some Cardinals are questioning him? Does he just not care about theology that much? I’m confused.

 

[Saxum]

I’m not a huge fan of Pope Francis and the farther we get into his Papacy the more I am wondering where he lands on Church theology. Of course, he is Pope, and I will always recognize that. However, this dubia thing. Why has he not answered? If he is truly conservative (which I doubt very much), why is he letting potential and actual confusion run about? Okay, so he’s slightly towards “center” on theological issues. Still, why has he not answered. It’s not like I’m asking. Four Cardinals are. Is Pope Francis thinking that it’s just not an issue? Well, if it wasn’t then it is now. Is he mad that some Cardinals are questioning him? Does he just not care about theology that much? I’m confused.

The answers you’re looking for are available online. Google ‘Denzinger-Bergoglio’ and you’ll find a document that is over 1000 pages long, which compares what Pope Francis says with what has always been taught by the Church. It is an invaluable document.

There are also two excellent books:

Remaining in the truth of Christ: https://www.amazon.com/Remaining-Tr...8-1&keywords=remaining+in+the+truth+of+christ

The Rigging of a Vatican Synod: An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family: https://www.amazon.com/Rigging-Vati...52&sr=1-1&keywords=RIGGING+OF+A+VATICAN+SYNOD

Lastly, I would encourage you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church daily and to read the writings of Pope St. John Paul II.

 

[oppositeman13]

the pope knows he cannot change catholic teaching - no one can and so he has not tried. What is allowed is a reasonable argument that what is proposed is a extension or clarification of official teaching. This doesn’t work for him because what he is proposing is contrary to official teaching. He hasn’t, to my knowledge, tried to make an argument for his views. I suggest you read the second section of the document where it points out where and when he said or did something that is contrary to our faith.

I don’t think he can answer without causing more upheaval - and this he doesn’t want - I think he wants there to be a smooth and quiet acceptance of his reforms. This isn’t going to happen and cardinal burke will present, if he hasn’t already done so privately, the pope with a formal correction. A schism could happen for sure. The pope has an agenda to reform the church and our thinking - he, I would think, is trying to do it as easily as possible. He has a vision he wants to install.

My guess is that he hasn’t answered because he has not a leg to stand on. He can argue his theology day and night to traditional catholics and get nowhere. He may have decided that this is acceptable and just leave some behind to do what they may - in other words he is willing to accept the price of installing his reforms. This is a real tragedy in the making for some souls, and who know how many, it could be in the hundreds of millions, will be lost that would have not been had he not become pope. But one thing at a time and so we will see what happens.

 

[AugustTherese]

Want to see how bogus and empty this “Correctio Filialis” is? Here is one example from page 16/25:

"In Your pilgrimage to Fatima for the beginning of this providential centenary, Your Holiness
clearly alluded to this Lutheran view about faith and justification, stating on May 12th, 2017:

‘Great injustice is done to God’s grace whenever we say that sins are punished by
his judgment, without first saying – as the Gospel clearly does – that they are
forgiven by his mercy! Mercy has to be put before judgment and, in any case, God’s
judgment will always be rendered in the light of his mercy. Obviously, God’s mercy
does not deny justice, for Jesus took upon himself the consequences of our sin,
together with its due punishment. He did not deny sin, but redeemed it on the
cross. Hence, in the faith that unites us to the cross of Christ, we are freed of our
sins; we put aside all fear and dread, as unbefitting those who are loved (cf. 1
Jn. 4:18).’

The gospel does not teach that all sins will in fact be forgiven, nor that Christ alone experienced
the ‘judgement’ or justice of God, leaving only mercy for the rest of mankind. While there is a
‘vicarious suffering’ of our Lord in order to expiate our sins, there is not a ‘vicarious punishment’,
for Christ was made “sin for us” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21) and not a sinner. Out of divine love, and not as
the object of God’s wrath, Christ offered the supreme sacrifice of salvation to reconcile us with
God, taking upon himself only the consequences of our sins (cf. Gal. 3:13). Hence, so that we
may be justified and saved, it is not sufficient to have faith that our sins have been removed by a
supposed vicarious punishment; our justification lies in a conformity to our Saviour achieved by
that faith which works through charity (cf. Gal. 5:6)."

Nowhere did Pope Francis even come remotely close to alluding to “The gospel teach[es] that all sins will in fact be forgiven”. Where would anyone in their right mind get that kind of inference out of what Pope Francis said?! Also, there is no hint or suggestion of Christ being “the object of God’s wrath”!!! Nothing what the CF states in retort to Pope Francis’ quoted words is even related!

Do not simply accept this as credible! Read the entire CF and realize that this stems from a protesting spirit that is seeking to divide the Church, especially since Vatican II. What a sad day!

 

[dbranch]

Cardinal Burke

Former archbishop here in St. Louis. He liked to squash little ants on his map if they were getting in his way (ants being innocent parishes). Not surprised he’s taking his pure “I only serve truth” attitude to the Vatican. (quoting him)

 

[Zaccheus]

I think if you would read the document in section 2 where it outlines and gives specific instances of heretical teachings by Pope Francis, you would see that these points are clear and very well thought out and backed by scripture and official catholic teachings. I don’t think it can be dismissed easily.

Heretical teachings by Pope Francis? This I do not believe.

 

[pnewton]

I would propose that far more good will come from reading the Catechism than books and blogs written to divide and anger. We have the opportunity to discuss this, or the opportunity to get mad about this. Those that choose the later will accomplish no more than men at a bar drinking beer and slamming on politicians do for the country, or than women gossiping over coffee about who is sinning and with whom do for the holiness of a parish.

The submission of this correction in July should have stayed withing the clergy, but someone (Dr. Joseph Shaw maybe) thought this should be read by all. I do not agree, but at least, I think it best to stick to the points and get past the personalities. It is unnecessary to speak of schism or heresy to discuss the points, if one must.

I still think most are better served reading the Catechism, Familiaris Consotio, and Amoris Laetitia.

 

[Entwhistler]

I think there is a distinction to be made between “teaching” (which the Pope is not doing) and propagating heresy (which the signers of this correction accuse him of). The signers make it quite clear that they are not accusing the Pope of teaching heresy.

 

[Trishie]

I think there is a distinction to be made between “teaching” (which the Pope is not doing) and propagating heresy (which the signers of this correction accuse him of). The signers make it quite clear that they are not accusing the Pope of teaching heresy.

While acknowledging that,
teaching heresy, and propagating heresy, is the same thing to ordinary Catholics.
If the Pope says so, or the Pope teaches so, it comes to the same perceived result.

Theologians and intellectuals might make the distinction, but the ordinary Catholic takes the Pope’s word as guidance and direction and responds accordingly.

so many things happening in the world today are like a bad dream from which we cannot wake

It does remain though that our primary responsibility is to pray that God’s will and truth will, and for welfare of Catholics around the world.

 

[Vadne]

The sad thing is, Amoris Laetitia is perhaps the most poorly rewritten, chaotically argued document in ecclesiastical history. It is really embarrassing it was released in a clearly unedited form. Then again…the point may well have been to be ambiguous and unclear, so as to permit heretical interpretations. Interpretations this pope has done NOTHING to correct.

 

[2towers]

I have to disagree. You missed the point of my post entirely. The signatories are all important. A correction signed by people with no or little church or religious standing in the Catholic Church would most certainly not carry the punch or have the “teeth” that peers of the church would. There is not enough information on the “process of a correction” yet to dinnertime if this thing carries any weight. Signatories from the SSPX carries no weight at all, and may even be counter productive to the intent behind the “correction.”

 

[ChunkMonk]

That is the thing about making this public. There are only a few reasons why Pope Francis would preach the ways he does about the things he does, and only a few reasons why he would not “clarify” toward tradition. The main reason is the one that everyone is dancing around, not quite saying but definitely implying: he holds heretical beliefs and would like to see at least an in practice change of the traditional teaching of the Church to fit those beliefs.

I’m not qualified to say whether this is true or not, but it is the open question whether the writers of this document want to admit it or not. Now that this is public, it will further that perception in at least some of the witnesses. And it will harden the other side, so if they are heretical, pushing them closer to open heresy and not just implied.

In this (hypothetical) scenario, he could not answer because to do so would either openly defy his personal beliefs or would be an open admission of heresy, and would solidify the battle-lines so there could be no “in practice” silent-coup, but rather an open war. He would have to remain silent and speak through proxies.

The vagueries had value in allowing the plausible deniability for all sides. As the situation becomes more clarified, but remains unresolved, such deniability becomes less and less tenable. Eventually someone will crack and either make the accusation or, on the other side, overstep the bounds of “practice” and enter into “dogma”.

Of course, we remain in the sticky situation of not talking about some politician or king, but the Pope. There are many who think it would be impossible for a Pope to even be a heretic, and others who think the accusation, even if theoretically true, would be so damaging as to be sinful despite it’s (theoretical) truthfulness. So we get the strange situation we are in where no one wants to say what they really think, and everyone is complaining about the room being crowded while studiously NOT mentioning the elephant in the corner.

 

[oppositeman13]

well people are going to line up on different sides - that’s what sad about what has happened in the past few years. Time, hopefully, will make all this clearer and we will get past all this. I, personally, don’t have any desire to discuss this much. My attitude is everyone has a right to their opinion and they can believe what they want. I do try to take advantage of presenting information (not so much here but on facebook and other places) to educate, not to my own opinion but to basic truths - such as no one in our church can change catholic teaching or teach in opposition to it. There are some who believe what the pope say or does is golden.

 

[AugustTherese]

I am genuinely curious as to how many people that claim that AL is “ambiguous” have actually read it with a fair and balanced approach, versus how many people are merely claiming this supposed “ambiguity” because they read a diatribe on an internet tract or sided with a few Cardinals misunderstanding the entire theme of AL and its intentions.