For the record, here is the interview that has been reported in recent days. I think Cardinal Burke is properly realistic that - even if he can hope and we all can hope otherwise - the Four Cardinals are at an impasse, which only reflects the impasse to which this pope has brought the Church; and that this pope is unlikely to put an end to it, because his modus operandi consists, among other things, of keeping everyone 'confused', that is to say, uncertain what to think about what he thinks, and he seems to take sadistic enjoyment from this incredible power that he has over most Catholics who still believe "If the pope says it - whoever the pope is - then it must be so, and that's what we ought to follow"
Cardinal Burke:
'No ultimatum to the Pope, but we must press forward:
The faith is in danger! The confusion in the Church is evident.
Clarity is needed.'
Interview by Lorenzo Bertocchi
Translated from LA VERITA by Andrew Guernsey
January 11, 2017
The discussion over the DUBIA, formal questions submitted to the Pope by the four cardinals on how to interpret the exhortation Amoris laetitia continues to draw attention.
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the watchdog of orthodoxy, in an interview with Tgcom24 said that the questions should not have been made public (the letter to the Pope was in September and the public disclosure was made in November),
there is no need to correct the pope because "there is no danger to the faith."
"The confusion in the Church over the interpretation of certain passages of Amoris laetitia is evident," Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, the most outspoken of the Four Cardinals, says instead to
La Verita: "that is why I do not see how anyone could be able to say that there is no danger to the faith. Moreover, we have communicated in a very respectful way five DUBIA to the Pope, and
when they were not given a response, we decided, for the good of souls, to make public that there are DUBIA and that all the faithful are called to pay attention."
Burke, a signer with Walter Brandmuller, Carlo Caffara and Joachim Meisner, then raised the issue of a possible "formal correction" of the Pope. And according to reports from several Italian media outlets drawing from an interview published it the United States [with LifeSiteNews], Burke had given an 'ultimatum' for this "formal correction" to be made after the feasts of Christmas.
In reality, there is "absolutely no ultimatum," says Cardinal Burke. "Many media outlets have misunderstood. In that interview in the United States, they had asked me what would be the next steps with respect to the dubia presented to the Holy Father, and I simply said that nothing could happen at that time seeing that we were about to enter into the liturgical season of Christmas and of Epiphany. Only
afterwards could one possibly think of how to proceed, but it certainly was not an ultimatum for a confrontation with the Pope."
The DUBIA revolve around access to Eucharist for the divorced and remarried who live
more uxorio [as husband and wife], access that, in certain cases, Amoris laetitia permits. And which instead, the previous magisterium had ruled out on several occasions, except in the case of a commitment to live as brother and sister for those divorced and remarried persons who cannot be separated for valid reasons.
Brandmuller has said that any possible "formal correction" of the pope would have to take place
in camera caritatis [in private].
"In fact," Burke specifies, "I have never said that a public confrontation ought to occur. I agree with Cardinal Brandmüller, the first step would be to ask for a private meeting with the Holy Father to point out to him the unacceptable statements in Amoris laetitia, showing how, in one way or another, they are not appropriate to express what the Church has always taught.”
There are those who claim that an institution of “formal correction" of the Holy Father does not exist in the discipline of the Church. Have you invented it?
Of course not. St. Thomas Aquinas in his theological writings proposes the a possible formal correction of the pope, which is also in the discipline of the Church. It has been rarely used, there are some examples, and certainly we can envisage the case of a Pope who in some way might be able to fall into error. In this case, a correction must be made.
To claim that, in certain cases, the divorced and remarried who live together more uxorio can receive the Eucharist means to commit an error?
We could say that the statement is materially erroneous, because it is not possible to receive the sacraments for a person who is living
more uxorio with someone who is not his or her spouse. To claim instead that this is possible constitutes a formal error that goes against what Jesus himself taught and has always been the teaching of the Church.
Therefore, to claim this is a heresy?
No, it seems to me that it can qualify as an error, but we are dealing with a complex situation.
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt, on the part of the baptized, of a truth that one must believe by divine and Catholic faith. [In this case, are we to define 'obstinate' by Jesus's words?
15 “If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector." (Mt 18, 15-17)
Are we now at the third stage, and what would be the contemporary equivalent of treating the pope 'as you would a gentile or a tax collector'?]
One heresy could be that of one who sustains that there do not exist intrinsically evil acts; to affirm this would be to say something contrary to the doctrine of the Church and would clearly be a heresy.
The affirmation about access to the sacraments of which we were speaking a while ago, on the other hand, refers to a practice that contradicts two doctrines: that of indissolubility of matrimony and that of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. At first glance we can say that certainly it’s an error.
Let's return to the DUBIA. There are those who insinuated that the four cardinals are divided among themselves. Is it true?
This is totally false, we are united and that's why I do not want to make any speculation about possible next steps to be taken for the initiative that we have undertaken. If we do it, we will do it after having confronted him.
[Oh, so the letter and the publication of it do not even constitute the first stage of what Christ advised? But what if he never calls them, and yet in so many ways continues to make clear he is obstinate about his potentially heretical views???]
But do you still think the Pope will respond to your dubia?
We are always waiting for a response from the Pope as our supreme pastor. To not expect a response would be disrespectful of his office.
[No, at some point, it becomes simply realistic to accept he will never give a formal answer! Or perhaps, he will - if and when - deign to direct some of his famed mercy towards you and ask to meet with you four! That can take forever.]
For many, the answer has already been given: the Four Cardinals are merely "doctors of law", severe and insensitive.
Moral law is not something that imprisons a person, it is exactly the opposite: Moral law frees the person and directs him to do good. In fact, when there is no respect for moral law, chaotic situations are produced, and morally there is a sort of imprisonment. For the person of faith, we must say that the Divine law liberates, and it is not a negative thing.
And to teach the moral law is a great act of love of neighbor because it points the way to authentic freedom and happiness. It is impossible to claim that a person can find some form of happiness while sinning.
The Pope has spoken of encountering "malevolent" resistance that "presents itself when the devil inspires wicked intentions." Did you all feel addressed specifically here?
I do not know to whom the pope was referring, personally I certainly did not feel guilty, because it is not the description of my position.
With your public initiative, does it seem to you to be contributing to dividing the Church rather than uniting it?
What divides is falsehood and ambiguity, the truth always unites. It is absurd to say that four cardinals who ask five reasonable questions, of fundamental importance for all Christians, are acting in a way to divide the Church. We are serving the Petrine office, giving the Pope the opportunity to confirm us in the teaching of the Church, faced with a situation that is proving ambiguous in practice.
Do other cardinals and prelates endorse the merit of the questions you have asked?
We are not only four. I personally know other cardinals who fully endorse the DUBIA.
Why so much noise for a problem that many have a hard time understanding? [That's a weird question! There is so much 'noise' about it precisely because many have a hard time understanding a most unprecedented situation when the reigning pope appears to be promoting anti-Catholic thinking and actions.]
We are dealing here with a question that concerns the Church in a profound way: matrimony and family, which is its fruit, and they constitute the foundation of the very life of the Church. Our task is not to lose ourselves in difficult or vague questions; we are simply giving our contribution to the growth of the Church in the most elementary cell of society.
Ultimately, the only 'crime' that remains is that of being intransigent traditionalists?
Well, all these labels are very convenient for not addressing
the core of our concern, which is the life of the Church. The DUBIA, like it or not, are directed to this.
Serendipitously apropos my introdutory remark above to Cardinal Burke's interview, John Smirak has put together an instructive catechesis of just what it is that a pope can rightly say and do. I think the takeaway slogan is his last line, which I have elevated to be a subtitle:
Do Catholics think that everything the pope says
is infallible and/or must they be bound by it?
The pope is like a Fedex guy - it’s his job to pass on a package. He’s not empowered to open it, rifle through the contents,
and replace them with something else even if he thinks it is 'better'
By JOHN ZMIRAK
January 16, 2017
Pope Francis warned us that he wanted to “make a mess” in the church, and at the moment, he seems to be making good on that promise. In still-fresh 2017, we have seen:
- The pope’s close advisor, Rev. Antonio Spadaro, who edits the quasi-official Vatican journal La Civilta Cattolica, defend Pope Francis’s apparent defiance of the infallible Council of Trent on divorce and remarriage, by explaining that in theology, “2+2=5.” No one knows quite what that means, but perhaps that’s the point.
- The bishops of Malta have published a set of guidelines for Holy Communion based on Pope Francis’s ambiguous document Amoris Laetitia, which openly depart from Catholic teaching and practice of 2,000 years. The Vatican’s response? To publish those guidelines, without criticism, in the Vatican’s L’Osservatore Romano.
- The Vatican’s science congregation, led by Argentine Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, has summoned a conference on biodiversity, and invited as a speaker Paul Ehrlich — a discredited “overpopulation” crank who favors coercive population control and abortion.
- As Professor Michael Pakaluk of the Catholic University of America revealed, papal ghostwriter, Argentine Archbishop Victor Fernandez, committed plagiarism in the text of Amoris Laetitia — lifting paragraphs almost whole from Fernandez’s own, wacky theological speculations. Some of the most troubling parts of that document which the pope made his own are snipped and tucked from an article where Fernandez asserts that absolutely every human being is saved. At least Fernandez didn’t (so far as we know) include any passages from his 1995 book: Heal Me with Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing.
And we still have 50 more weeks to go!
In light of all this dumpster fire smoke, it seems useful to examine the very narrow limits within which papal authority is circumscribed by the Church’s perennial teaching. Otherwise, well-meaning people might very well get the idea that the Catholic Church is morphing before our eyes into a mainline Protestant denomination. Plus bingo.
Talking Real Catholicism with an Imaginary Protestant
As I remember, you Roman Catholics used to take the occasional jab at Protestants for the moral chaos that erupts when you don’t have a central authority — you know, a trustworthy figure whom you’re certain will keep the church’s doctrine the same as it always has been, since the apostles.
Yes, some of us did.
So… how’s that working out for you?
Very funny. I’d bring up Benny Hinn right now, but I frankly don’t have the heart.
So has Pope Francis’s behavior led you to re-evaluate papal authority?
Absolutely. It’s forcing us to hunker down and realize exactly what it was that Christ promised us, and what He didn’t.
Thanks to Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we Catholics got good and spoiled. Both men were well-educated, highly intelligent, deeply benevolent, and devoted to the historic teachings of the church. It was easy to assume that every pope would have to have all those attributes — though of course a reading of Renaissance history (for instance) would have told us something different.
A pope really can have none of those attributes, and still hold the throne of Peter. At such times, it’s only the Holy Spirit that protects us against our shepherd.
Fair enough. Without getting into all sorts of Catholic inside foosball, explain to me how you can still be Catholic and reject what the pope is saying and doing on crucial areas of faith and morals. And how can he apparently contradict what previous popes and councils have solemnly taught on those issues?
Okay. The whole idea of church authority which Catholics and Eastern Orthodox hold, and which virtually every Christian on earth accepted until 1517 — I’d like to remind you — is this:
Jesus taught the apostles many things, not all of which got literally transcribed in the documents which decades later were written, and were compiled by bishops into the New Testament. Those truths which Christ taught them, which they preached to the first Christian communities and then from the pulpits of churches, were key criteria which the church used when it discerned which “gospels” were authentic and divinely inspired, and which ones were pious fictions. Did this “gospel” match what the bishops had learned from their predecessors, who learned them from Jesus?
For instance, it is possible to read the New Testament and be confused about whether Jesus is co-equal with the Father. Millions of Christians (called “Arians”) got that wrong. It took the bishops of the Church gathered in councils to clear up such misunderstandings (“heresies”). That body of teachings which bishops passed down for three hundred years before the Canon of scripture was “closed” has a name: We call it sacred (big-T) Tradition.
It is not the traditions of men, but the handing-0n (traditio) of what Jesus taught the apostles. Combine those truths with the truths of scripture, and you’ve got the whole megila, which we call the Deposit of Faith. It’s the job of the bishops and the pope to hand on that Deposit of Faith, unchanged and untarnished by human inventions, from one generation to the next. Think of it as a relay race.
So how do you determine what’s the authentic Deposit of Faith, perhaps rephrased or clarified, and what are human corruptions that a wicked or stupid bishop or pope has decided to slather on top of the baton?
The Church has a teaching authority, which we call the Magisterium. (We stole that name from the villains of a Philip Pullman novel.) It amounts to the bishops and the pope. On extraordinary occasions, the bishops will gather in a universal (“ecumenical”) council, and issue decrees that clear up disputed points.
That happened at Nicaea when the bishops condemned the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was less than the Father. It happened again at Trent, when the bishops condemned divorce and remarriage. Every pope thereafter is bound by the results of such a council.
On even rarer occasions, a pope will invoke his maximal authority, and issue a teaching that has the same weight as a council’s. This has happened at least twice, and at most probably eight times in history. These are the only exercises of the Church’s authority which we call “infallible.” We call them (sorry for the jargon) the “extraordinary Magisterium.”
What’s the ordinary kind?
That refers to statements by bishops and popes that simply repeat, perhaps slightly rephrased, what the church has always taught since the age of the apostles on a given subject. T
These re-statements of previous Church teachings don’t claim infallible authority, but Catholics are supposed to defer to them, on the assumption that bishops and popes probably know the Tradition better than we do. That’s usually a pretty good bet.
What happens when a pope says something that isn’t grounded in Tradition, but is simply his own idea or interpretation?
Then it’s not part of the Magisterium, and we have no duty to defer to it.
What about when the Church has said one thing in one century, and another thing later on? For instance, after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, bishops suddenly wanted the government involved in policing people’s religious faith. But at Vatican II, the church renounced that idea, and went back to its old call for religious freedom.
That didn’t go back to the Apostles, you’ll notice, so it could never have been part of the original Deposit of Faith. But the very fact that the church took two opposing positions at different times means that it was never part of the ordinary Magisterium. The same thing is true of lending money at interest and slavery, on which church authorities have expressed conflicting opinions.
Most political and economic questions, except at the very highest level of general principle, cannot be settled by appealing to the Magisterium. So you can’t put together a Catholic ideology based on what popes have said over the centuries. It just doesn’t hold together. That’s not true of dogma and doctrine.
Now the question of divorce and remarriage has been settled, infallibly as you say, by the Extraordinary Magisterium. So if Pope Francis were to say, “Yes, I am teaching something new on divorce, remarriage and Communion. …” You wouldn’t be obliged to defer to it?
No, we’d have the duty to scream our heads off and reject it — as the laity rejected the Arian heresy, even when a pope got squishy under pressure from the emperor.
If the Catholic claim about papal infallibility is true, no pope would live long enough to sign an ex cathedra document that taught heresy.
So that wouldn’t be part of the Magisterium?
Not at all — because it doesn’t repeat previous teaching, but contradicts it. Now Jesus was able to come along and say things like, “Moses taught you X, but I say unto you Y.” You know why He could do that? Because he was GOD. Okay? That’s not a power which every pope, or any pope, is given. To say that really would be idolatry, treating popes as if they were God.
But aren’t some Vatican officials and bishops claiming that the new teaching in Pope Francis’s document, Amoris Laetitia, is part of the Magisterium?
Yes. They are misrepresenting the truth — as Bishop Sorondo did when he claimed that Pope Francis’s opinions on the scientific details of climate change were Magisterial teaching.
What if Pope Francis decided to issue an infallible statement, insisting that the Maltese bishops’ interpretation on divorce, marriage and communion is authentic Catholic teaching?
In such a situation, we believe the Holy Spirit would intervene. As Catholics, we believe that God would veto such a statement.
How would he do that?
Look back at scripture for examples. Noah’s flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the fate of Onan. It’s not for me to predict what means He’d decide to use. But if the Catholic claim is true, no pope would live long enough to sign such a document.
And that’s all that papal infallibility means? “Try to teach heresy ex cathedra, and get a heart attack?”
Yes, in effect.
The pope is not an oracle, not a second Jesus, not the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution as it goes along. He’s like a Fedex guy, and it’s his job to pass on a package. He’s not empowered to open it, rifle through the contents, and replace them with something he thinks is 'better'. [BRAVO!]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/01/2017 19:47]