Posted on 12/06/2016 7:00:25 PM PST by NKP_Vet
Prof. Roberto de Mattei, the acclaimed Church historian, has warned that Pope Francis' decision not to respond to the four cardinals' dubia has plunged the Church into a civil war. Catholics now have to choose what side will to take in the "civil war", which Prof. de Mattei frames in terms of taking a stand for fidelity or siding with infidelity. Prof. de Mattei gave his stark assessment of the crisis in an exclusive interview with Lifesite news. Prof de Mattei is a professor at the European University of Rome and the president of the Lepanto Foundation. He told Lifesite News, "It is important to comprehend that today there is a clear choice between fidelity to the Church, to the perennial Magisterium, or infidelity, which means errors, heresy, and apostasy."
Prof. de Mattei stood behind the assessment made by the four cardinals about the state of the Church in the wake of the Holy Father's publication of Amoris Laetitia. Cardinal Burke and the others explained in their dubia, "We have noted a grave disorientation and great confusion of many faithful regarding extremely important matters for the life of the Church. We have noted that even within the episcopal college there are contrasting interpretations of Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia. Prof. Roberto de Mattie concurs with the cardinals' conclusion that Amoris Laetitia is causing "tremendous confusion inside the Church" due to the pope's ambiguous moral teaching, resulting in "division" and "fragmentation" among bishops, priests, and the faithful.
The professor expressed approval of the cardinals' action in submitting the five dubium [doubts] placing the blame for the subsequent confusion and conflict at the door of the Holy Father:
The cause of this confusion, the author of this confusion is not the four cardinals, of course. I think that the main author of the confusion is Pope Francis, because it is since his pontificate that things go so rapidly, so fast. It seems sometimes that he likes to create this confusion. The cardinals acted in a perfect way from a canonical point of view. I consider it very grave the fact that the Pope, who is the supreme head of the congregation, didn't want to answer. This is already an answer, in fact.
Prof. de Mattei also supported Cardinal Burke's determination to issue a formal declaration of serious error if Pope Francis did not repond to their dubium:
The importance of this initiative is not only to warn the Pope about the errors found in Amoris Laetitia, but also to warn the faithful, to inform the faithful, because among the faithful there is confusion but there is also ignorance. And I think that we have the duty to make the faithful aware of the gravity of this situation.
The professor of Church history concludes that the crisis is so serious that it is no longer possible for Catholics to remain neutral in the civil war provoked by Amoris Laetitia:
This situation is so grave that a neutral position is no longer possible. Today we are in a war, a religious civil war, unfortunately. I don't like this war, but we are engaged in it against our will. We have not created the situation, but this situation obliges everyone to pursue a clear position. And for this, I think we have to thank the four cardinals for their courage and to push them to continue their action and their witness.
Prof. Robert Spaemann, leading German Catholic philosopher, friend and contemporary of Pope Benedict XVI, has also expressed alarm that Pope Francis has brought the "supreme Magisterium" into disrepute by his refusal to respond to the cardinals' dubia. Prof. Spaemann, professor emeritus of the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich, expressed his concern in an interview with Nuova Bussola Quotidiana.
Prof. Robert Spaemann expressed support for the cardinals' dubia and their decision to make their initiative public once the Holy Father refused to answer:
With the dubia, the Cardinals take on their proper duty to support with their council - insofar as they are 'senators' - the Church in the person of the Holy Father. It's regrettable that only four cardinals have taken the initiative in this matter. The four Cardinals have chosen the right path. The Pope was the first recipient of dubia, though I think the text was also passed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was not written as an "open letter", but was sent directly to the Holy Father. It was only made public later, after the Pope refused to answer.
The professor also expressed great concern about the damage done to the "supreme Magisterium" by Pope Francis's silence:
The Pope's refusal to answer the appeal of the four Cardinals fills me with great worry since, in a certain way, the supreme Magisterium in this case is being debased. The Pope clearly has a deep aversion to these decisions in which a 'yes' or 'no' is required.
The professor of philosophy countered the pope's refusal to give 'yes' or 'no' answer with the example of Christ, the Lord of the Church, who often presented his disciples with decisions of this kind. In the specific question regarding adultery, Jesus 'shocks' the apostles with the simplicity and clarity of his doctrine.
Comment
Sacred Scripture makes it very clear how the faithful should respond if someone attempts to teach a "new gospel" instead of the Gospel handed on to us from the Apostles:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1: 6-9).
This strong response against those seeking to "pervert the Gospel" was solemnly defined by Vatican I in terms of being the right and the duty of the Church to proscribe "opinions that are known to be opposed to the doctrine of the faith". (Dei Filius, chap. 4).
Clearly, all the faithful have the right and the duty to question those bishops and priests who interpret Amoris Laetitia in ways that are contrary to Our Lord's doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage and the sin of adultery and fornication.
The rub is that if you get an annulment, you are okay with the church and are once again able to receive communion. Even Ted Kennedy (murderer and adulterer) was able to get an annulment from his wife (Catholic-paid divorce), with whom he had 3 children.
Sometimes they are answered. Usually they are not.
It does not at all imply a suspicion of heterodoxy. All laws and written doctrines are to some extent, open to multiple possible interpretations in good faith. Even the Commandments. There is a constant flow of dubia from the world to Rome and a slow trickle of answers.
A dubium in the Roman curial context implies doubt as to meaning, not doubt as to faith or doubt as to whether the whole religion as fallen apart (which is the sin of doubt).
If you find it tedious then you have no vocation for it. Shut up and let others do the talking, lest you be guilty of the lies you casually spew.
LOL.
Any literate Catholic can be certain that someone who propagates the "down with the Pope" crap differs from all previous Catholics.
No answer was given to the dubia. Live your lives accordingly.
Your papolatry is heretical nonsense.
Thank you, Martin.
“...Jesus Christ speaks the Truth and at least four orthodox cardinals agree with him...”
Well said. Jesus Christ speaks the Truth that Luke informs of us in Luke 16:18 which is the position that the Church has always held from the day Jesus said it up until this (heretical) anti-Pope started a movement to obscure the gospel and allow a scenario where mortal sin is permitted to occur. ( I Corinthians 11:29)
Whether or not we admire the cardinals who are taking the correct position is totally irrelevant to the question at hand. (Although of course we do admire them, but that is entirely beside the point of the issue)
Nice. Is that you, Fr. Spadaro?
A "vocation" for tedious word parsing is a dangerous thing.
"But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." (Mt 5:37)
Blind papolatry vis a vis Bergoglio is a foolish condition. Cui bono? Those who favor perverse sexual unions are delighted with AL and the Jesuitical machinations involved in attempting to shove it down our collective throats.
"But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God." (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas)
Well as an Evangelical I reject many of the notions such as Transubstantiation and the tiers of sin although as a historian focusing on medieval Church history I get the implication in Catholic theology. How does it imply sexual sin isn’t sin (aside from divorce)? What other areas does he come out as gray?
It still seems to deny it to gays, and still comes out against abortion.
Weren't you just saying last week that it was wrong for Catholics to preach to Protestants or "steal sheep"? Hypocritical, much?
And here we have the reason for the election of the heretic Bergoglio. Since he is completely off the rails, Catholics can be assured that "all" previous popes did not lapse into heresy....even those "orthodox" Vatican II "popes".
I predict that the next man elected as pope will be "orthodox" in comparison to Francis and most will return to the belief/continue to believe that Vatican II was Catholic...and that the Church was saved from big, bad Francis.
But he won't be "orthodox". He will appear so in comparison, but he will just be less Modernist. And quite frankly, that will make him even more dangerous than Francis ever was. I prefer my wolves in wolf clothing, not sheep's clothing. But both are, without a doubt, wolves.
Well, at least you're able to express yourself. I suppose you don't frequent any Masses where "Francis our Pope" is said in the Canon.
Enjoy your new "church". Really hope it works out for you at the end of time.
Cheers.
“...enjoy your new church...”
Traditonalists are not always sede vacantists, including myself.
Pope Honorius I was officially declared to be a heretic Pope.
He would have been prayed for in the canon at masses before it was found out that he embraced the monophysite heresy.
The fact that many of us, including the four cardinals, realize that Francis’ teaching that “divorced” Catholics living in an un normalized union as “married” without having had their previous marriage declared null and void are living in adultery as per Mark 10:11 -12 and are therefore ineligible for communion.
This does not cause me to somehow be in a new church - it did not cause the Catholics living under Honorius I reign as Pope to be in a “new’ church before it was officially determined that he was teaching in error.
Sounds like you’re Poping, Mr. Antipapist.
Mr. anti papist
hehehe I am a grandmother!
There are legitimate issues with this Pope’s AL - one only has to read scripture: Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11-12 and I Corinthians 11:27 as starting points.
“Shut up and let others do the talking, lest you be guilty of the lies you casually spew.”
That sort of language hardly seems to befit a Catholic thread. While this is certainly a controversial topic, I think we would benefit from more Christ-like interactions in our discussions.
Noël! Noël! Noël! Noël!
A Catholic tale have I to tell! And a Christian song have I to sing
While all the bells in Arundel ring.
I pray good beef and I pray good beer
This holy night of all the year,
But I pay detestable drink for them
That give no honour to Bethlehem.
May all good fellows that here agree
Drink Audit Ale in heaven with me
And may all my enemies go to hell!
Noël! Noël! Noël! Noël!
May all my enemies go to hell!
Noël! Noël!
“You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. ...But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
“For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.”
as for homosexual sins, well his oft misquoted who am I to judge, and his appointment of known gays or gay friendly bishops sort of hint at what he really thinks.
If he openly came out in heresy there would be a schism. The letter of the 4 bishops essentially said clear up the confusion now.
what is going on is that he is sowing confusion about sin so a future pope can change things
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.