About that 'formal correction'
of the pope - and apostasy in the Church
In the preceding page, I remarked that Louie Verrecchio wrote about how Cardinal Burke says nothing of the 'act of formal correction' he had indicated earlier this year would be proposed after Easter - presumably by him and the other DUBIA cardinals (now minus one with the death of Cardinal Meisner) - in the address he gave in St. Louis last July 22.
At which time I said, "The point is well-taken but there may be plausible explanations for that, chief among them being that there seems to be no precedent in modern times (or ever?) for such a formal act of correction, how it would be done, and whether it means anything at all, let alone have any formal validity, other than as a stronger expression of the DUBIA as objective statements borne out by Amoris laetitia which the pope refuses to refute.
So I was pleased to find out that on the same day, August 14, The Remnant published Part 2 (I cannot find the link to Part 1) of a lengthy interview with Cardinal Burke in which he does talk about the correction, in the process answering the questions I raised:
But immediately preceding the above, the cardinal gave an answer that warmed the cockles of my heart, because another Eminence confirms my choice for some time now to use the word apostasy as a more appropriate and less disputable term than heresy to describe the many Bergoglian heterodoxies.
Setting aside the question of timing, please explain how the process for the execution of a “formal correction” would proceed should a response to the five dubia not be forthcoming? How is a formal correction officially submitted, how is it addressed within the Church’s hierarchal structure, etc.?
The process has not been frequently invoked in the Church, and not now for several centuries. There has been the correction of past Holy Fathers on significant points, but not in a doctrinal way.
It seems to me that the essence of the correction is quite simple. On the one hand, one sets forth the clear teaching of the Church; on the other hand, what is actually being taught by the Roman Pontiff is stated. If there is a contradiction, the Roman Pontiff is called to conform his own teaching in obedience to Christ and the Magisterium of the Church.
The question is asked, “How would this be done?” It is done very simply by a formal declaration to which the Holy Father would be obliged to respond. Cardinals Brandmüller, Caffarra, Meisner, and I used an ancient institution in the Church of proposing dubia to the Pope.
This was done in a very respectful way and not in any way to be aggressive, in order to give him the occasion to set forth the Church’s unchanging teaching. Pope Francis has chosen not to respond to the five dubia, so it is now necessary simply to state what the Church teaches about marriage, the family, acts that are intrinsically evil, and so forth. These are the points that are not clear in the current teachings of the Roman Pontiff; therefore, this situation must be corrected. The correction would then direct itself principally to those doctrinal points.
There have been cases, as I mentioned, of the correction of past Roman Pontiffs on non-doctrinal points where cardinals have gone to the Holy Father on one thing or the other such as, for example, matters dealing with administration of the Church.
Another question can also be raised. The Pope is the principle of unity of the bishops and all the faithful. However, the Church is being torn asunder right now by confusion and division. The Holy Father must be called on to exercise his office to put an end to this.
So then, the next step would be a formal declaration stating the clear teachings of the Church as set forth in the dubia. Furthermore, it would be stated that these truths of the Faith are not being clearly set forth by the Roman Pontiff. In other words, instead of asking the questions as was done in the dubia, the formal correction would be stating the answers as clearly taught by the Church.
The cardinal refers to the mention of apostasy in the Message of Fatima - which is not, of course, in the text of the Third Message that the Vatican released in 2000, while there are plausible accounts that it is the mention of apostasy at the highest levels of the Church that has caused the popes to edit that out of the message that has been made public. Our Lady appears to have been just as prophetic about this Great Apostasy in the Church as she was about the two World Wars and Communism.
People talk about a de facto schism. I am absolutely in opposition to any kind of formal schism — a schism can never be correct. [Not to mention that the orthodox Catholics would not declare schism at all, formal or not, because they do uphold the one true Church - and why would they allow the Bergoglian apostates to appropriate it for their false church?]
People can, however, be living in a schismatic situation if the teaching of Christ has been abandoned. The more appropriate word would be the one Our Lady used in her Message of Fatima: apostasy. There can be apostasy within the Church and this, in fact, is what is going on. In connection with the apostasy, Our Lady also referred to the failure of pastors to bring the Church to unity.
I just saw for the first time today a quotation from Paul VI cited in Corriere della Sera of October 22, 1977, in which he said:
This was a far stronger assertion than the much-quoted 'smoke of Satan' line from his homily on the ninth anniversary of his coronation as Pope, in which he said he had the sensation that "from some fissure, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God".
The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.
I went back to look up the original homily but unfortunately, the Vatican site only carries an extended paraphrased account of it in Italian. What follows the 'smoke of Satan' quotation, which is enclosed in direct quotation marks, is paraphrase, as follows (my translation):
These are the words of a man clearly disillusioned by what followed Vatican-II, signs and symptoms which have reached their peak today in the era of Bergoglio.
Sorry, got into the apostasy thing so much I forgot to provide the link to the Burke interview:
There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. No one trusts the Church anymore. We trust in the first profane prophet that comes along from the media or from some social organization and run to him to ask him if he has the formula for true life.
Doubt has entered our consciousness and has come in through windows that should instead be open to the light. From science, which we have devised to find objective truths that are not detached from God but which would make us seek him even more and celebrate him with greater intensity, has come instead criticism and doubt. It is the scientists who exert themselves most thoughtfully and even painfully [in search of truths] who end up telling us, "I don't know, we don't know, we cannot know".
Schools end being arenas of confusion and often absurd contradictions. Progress is celebrated in order to be able to demolish it later with the strangest and most radical revolutions, to cancel out what was previously won, to turn back to primitiveness after having so exalted the progress of the modern world.
Even in the Church, this uncertainty reigns. It was thought that the [Second Vatican] Council would be followed by a sunny day in the history of the Church. Instead we have had clouds, tempest, darkness, uncertainty. We preach ecumenism yet we detach ourselves ever more from others. We seek to excavate abysses instead of filling them up...
[Edited by TERESA BENEDETTA 8/16/2017 2:01 AM]