Filial Correction is part of the “haphazard and painfully slow effort to confront the blasphemies and heresies of Francis”
Now that some of the dust has settled following the publication of the “Filial Correction” on Sunday (midnight Rome time), let’s take a closer look.
We’ll begin by addressing the question, How is the Correction different than the appeals and petitions that preceded it?
In the previous post, I noted the most obvious and noteworthy difference:
The Correction does not limit itself to charging Francis with making ambiguous statements that require a correct interpretation, nor does it represent a call for greater clarity; rather, it highlights seven propositions in Amoris Laetitia that “contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith.”
The wording in this case reflects, and no doubt deliberately so, the canonical definition of heresy:
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith… (cf Canon 751)
The text of the Correction even goes so far as to suggest, albeit cautiously, obstinacy on the part of Francis, saying that he “has sufficiently made clear the scope and purpose of this document [Amoris Laetitia],” for one, by his silence on the Dubia; for another, by various words and deeds that are documented within the text of the Correction.
The “Summary” provided on the website that was set up by the authors of the Correction goes further still, saying:
It [the Correction] lists the passages of Amoris laetitia in which heretical positions are insinuated or encouraged, and then it lists words, deeds, and omissions of Pope Francis which make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that he wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical.
No longer, according to the Correction, is it reasonable to doubt that Francis intends to teach heresy in Amoris Laetitia.
Of course, that’s not news to our readers as we have been saying this since the day Bergolgio’s Lover Letter to Satan was published.
Even so, the degree to which other, more … ahem… respectable persons (who “prudently” held their peace and didn’t shoot from the hip like the present writer) are starting to wake up to that reality is noteworthy.
Shortly after the publication of Amoris Laetitia, Fr. Linus Clovis, one of the signatories to the Correction, said that the “nuances, implications and applications” of the exhortation “will require time, study and prayerful reflection in order to unravel all of its implications.”
Last April, at a laity-led conference commemorating the one year anniversary of Amoris Laetitia held in Rome, Dr. Claudio Pierantoni (University of Chile), another signatory, said of the exhortation:
What is obvious in the current situation is precisely the basic doctrinal distortion which, even though it cleverly avoids any directly heterodox formula…
Fr. John Hunwicke (an Anglican convert of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham), who also signed the Correction, just this past May authored a four part series under the title “Is the Pope a heretic?” wherein he concluded:
To this question there can only be one answer: NO. And NO means, as Mrs Brexiteer May might put it, NO. Pope Bergoglio has NEVER, to my knowledge, formally enunciated doctrines which are unambiguously heretical. [Emphasis in original.]
So, here we have three individual persons of the “full communion” kind who have gone from speaking of Amoris Laetitia in terms of nuances, implications and applications; the avoidance of any directly heterodox formula, and nothing unambiguously heretical to plainly acknowledging that the text contradicts divinely revealed truths.
So, what exactly has changed?
Well it certainly wasn’t the objective sense of the text of Amoris Laetitia, much less was it the dogmatic teachings of the Holy Catholic faith that are contradicted therein; rather, what changed, apparently, is that God’s grace has begun to open the eyes of those who were previously blind.
This should encourage all of us. It means that our prayers and sacrifices for Holy Church and the sacred hierarchy are having an effect. Now, we must redouble our efforts.
This brings me to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the only bishop to sign the Correction…
NOTE: I find it interesting that Bishop Athanasius Schnieder isn’t among the signatories given that the text appears to be right up his alley, and it is very likely that he was consulted in the process of its drafting. What this means, I do not know (perhaps it means nothing), but it may indicate that his energies are currently being directed toward something more profound. That would be my guess at any rate, and indeed, I believe this to be the reason why none of the cardinals, most notably Burke and Brandmuller, signed the Correction. More on that in a moment…
As regular readers of this space are keenly aware, in the spring of this year, the SSPX offered an evaluation of Amoris Laetitia and its humble author in a series of articles written by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize.
The conclusion was summarized in an “Editor’s Note” that read as follows:
Fr. Gleize’s precise distinction will surprise more than one. In short, it seems that Pope Francis cannot be considered heretical, since none of the ambiguous statements in Amoris laetitia constitute “a rejection or contradiction of a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.”
Shortly thereafter, I was able to confirm with the U.S. District House that Fr. Gleize’s conclusion is not just a personal opinion but rather “reflects the SSPX’s position in front of the errors and scandals of the present pontificate.”
Apparently, that too has changed since the Superior General of the Society has chosen to attach his signature (alongside that of Fr. Robert Brucciani, the District superior of the SSPX in Great Britain) on a text stating that Amoris Laetitia does indeed ‘“contradict truths that are divinely revealed, and that Catholics must believe with the assent of divine faith.”
That is enough for now concerning how the Correction differs from the appeals and petitions that preceded it.
Among those things that are not different includes what we can expect in the way of an official response from Francis. All indications are that he will simply ignore it (and perhaps even find motivation in it) while forging ahead with his diabolical agenda.
So what does the Correction mean and where will it lead?
In publishing the text of the Correction, Rorate Caeli offered the following observation:
… this is just the first part, the first piece of the puzzle, with next steps still to come in a long and extended process. This first step is an initiative of a theological nature that will likely lead, God willing, to an initiative of a canonical nature from those who have the mandate to act. And so it begins…
The Correction is, of course, a piece of the puzzle, but it is hardly the first step in this (thus far haphazard and painfully slow) effort to confront the blasphemies and heresies of Francis.
It’s not even the most noteworthy step with respect to some future initiative of “a canonical nature;” a distinction that belongs to the Dubia if to anything.
The Church simply does not have a canonical procedure in place for ridding the Church of a heretic pope.
The best that we have are certain Scriptural citations and commentaries from venerable Saints and theologians which seem to point the way forward. (My multi-part exchange with Robert Siscoe published here in December and January attempts to flesh this out.)
The fact of the matter is, folks, we are in uncharted territory.
While some are keen to draw parallels between the present situation with Francis and that of Pope John XXII, the two are apples and oranges as the latter expressed a willingness to, and ultimately accepted the invitation to, stand corrected.
As mentioned, I believe that the reason no members of the College of Cardinals signed the Correction is because those who are of sufficiently Catholic mind to agree with its contents are preparing for the “formal declaration” mentioned by Cardinal Burke.
While it wouldn’t necessarily hurt their cause to sign the Correction, the fact of the matter is that it is nothing more than an appeal from certain of the faithful, some of whom are clergy.
As noteworthy as that may be, an action of the College of Cardinals, or certain members thereof, is of a different, far more solemn nature.
As such, I think it is right that they refrained from adding their names to the text while focusing on their own next step; one that deserves their singular attention.
About that next step, Cardinal Burke said that it will be “a formal declaration to which the Holy Father would be obliged to respond.”
At this point, it seems reasonable to expect that the “formal declaration” will happen, and what’s more, that it will be as strong, and likely even stronger, in its wording than the text of the Correction.
I also think that it’s reasonable to expect multiple cardinals to sign the declaration, and that it will likely include the names of bishops as well (Schneider being one of them).
They key, as I’ve written previously, concerns the idea that Francis will be “obliged to respond.”
This seems to suggest that the consequences of his failure to do so will be articulated within the declaration.
So, what do I expect to take place in the aftermath of the formal declaration?
From Francis, more obstinacy and destruction. Then, we will likely see formal schism.
We also have it on good authority that we will have (or already do) a bishop dressed in white in Rome who gives the impression of being the pope, and a Holy Father who will be killed.
Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!
Read the full article at aka Catholic