FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Dubia debacle shows the Church is in a ‘religious civil war’, says famed Catholi
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

From Lifesite, my emphasis in bold:



WATCH: Dubia debacle shows the Church is in a ‘religious civil war’, says famed Catholic historian

ROME, December 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Italian Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei has stated that Pope Francis’ refusal to answer questions by the four Cardinals about whether Amoris Laetitia conforms to Catholic teaching is itself “already an answer,” the implications of which, he says, indicates that the Catholic Church has entered into a “religious civil war.”

“This situation is so grave that a neutral position is no longer possible. Today we are in a war, a religious civil war,” de Mattei told LifeSiteNews in an exclusive interview in Rome last month.

“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,” he said.
 
De Mattei, a professor at the European University of Rome and the president of the Lepanto Foundation, stated that there is “tremendous confusion inside the Church” caused by the pope’s ambiguous moral teaching, especially as found in his April exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which he said has caused “division” and “fragmentation” among bishops, priests, and the faithful. 

The exhortation specifically has been criticized by faithful Catholics for undermining the indissolubility of marriage, opening a door for couples in adulterous relationships to receive Holy Communion, and for making conscience the final arbiter of morality. As some critics feared, the exhortation is already being used by some liberal bishops to welcome openly homosexual “families” into parishes and for allowing adulterous couples to receive Holy Communion in certain cases. 

When the four Cardinals privately asked the pope in September — following a standard procedure within the Church — whether the exhortation conforms to Catholic teaching on marriage, the sacraments, and conscience, the pope failed to answer their questions. 

Specifically, they asked: 1) whether adulterers can receive Holy Communion; 2) whether there are absolute moral norms that must be followed “without exceptions;” 3) if habitual adultery is an “objective situation of grave habitual sin;” 4) whether an intrinsically evil act can be turned into a “‘subjectively’ good” act based on “circumstances or intentions;” and 5) if, based on “conscience,” one can act contrary to known “absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts.”

The cardinals then went public with their questions last month, only to receive harsh criticism from high-ranking prelates, including two who were recently made cardinals by Pope Francis. The four stand accused of being “troublesome,” in need of “conversion,” of committing “apostasy” and “scandal,” of giving the pope a “slap in the face,” and of creating “difficulty and division.” 

But de Mattei argued that it was not the four cardinals who created the problem, but the pope.   

“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,” he said. “It seems sometimes that he likes to create this confusion.”

Vox Wrote:
It really does seem that way. "Make a mess!" and all that. He seems to love chaos, and hate order. There is something very, very wrong with the way he apparently thinks, as evident in what he says and what he does. He's exactly the opposite of the sort of person we need as the earthly head of the Church. 180 degrees off. Way, way off.

I Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the God of dissension ["confusion" in the KJV], but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints...

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

Galatians 1:6-10
I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.  Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

The 7 Gifts of the Holy Ghost
Wisdom
Understanding
Counsel
Fortitude
Knowledge
Piety
Fear of the Lord

De Mattei said that the cardinals acted in a “perfect way from a canonical point of view” when they submitted their five questions (dubia) to the pope. 

“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,” he said. 
 
De Mattei called it “very opportune” for the cardinals to pursue what one of them —Cardinal Burke — called a “formal act of correction” of the errors found in the Pope’s exhortation.   

“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,” he said. 

“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,” he added.

Vox Wrote:
Please note that Lifesite is holding a fundraiser! If you're able, please help them in their work by sending what you can!: 


The RSV-CE also says "confusion" for its translation of 1 Cor 14:33.  Also, the Latin Vulgate word used here is "dissensionis." The translates as "confusion."

The threefold mission of a bishop is to teach, to govern, and to sanctify. Pope Francis sows confusion rather than understanding. He sidelines faithful bishops and elevates unfaithful ones. Those two things lead people into sin, and leave people who are in sin to be comfortable where they are. That is not a good position for a pope to be in. Pray for him, as well as for those who might have the courage to rebuke him for his errors.
(12-07-2016, 04:18 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]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,” he added.


THIS.

And yet I struggle. I have tried to keep largely silent for nearly four years now  - with very occasional outbursts - trying to follow the inspiration of great and obedient Saints such as St Pio who never challenged all the horrors unleashed by Bl. Paul VI.

But I am not at all neutral here.

And I ask if my relative silence, if my aspiration to a non-toxic "gentle traditionalism", nonetheless may send unhelpful signals that _sound_ like neutrality.

I am still struggling to discern my way in this. At the beginning of the Papacy, I swore I wouldn't be like all those mealy mouthed hypocrites who had claimed to be "faithfully dissenting" from St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict for the previous 35 years ...

But I think the key word now may be GRAVE.

Far, far, far  more grave than _anything_ under Bl. Paul VI.

Who knows - maybe even St Pio would be speaking out now if he were with us today.

Struggling to know HOW to speak.

Any thoughts on what obedience to the Pope and what TRUE "faithful dissent" would looks like in this more grave than ever before situation ...?
Crazy ... just posted something accidental again, which I can't delete. So I modify it.
(12-07-2016, 06:32 AM)Roger Buck Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-07-2016, 04:18 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]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,” he added.


THIS.

And yet I struggle. I have tried to keep largely silent for nearly four years now  - with very occasional outbursts - trying to follow the inspiration of great and obedient Saints such as St Pio who never challenged all the horrors unleashed by Bl. Paul VI.

But I am not at all neutral here.

And I ask if my relative silence, if my aspiration to a non-toxic "gentle traditionalism", nonetheless may send unhelpful signals that _sound_ like neutrality.

I am still struggling to discern my way in this. At the beginning of the Papacy, I swore I wouldn't be like all those mealy mouthed hypocrites who had claimed to be "faithfully dissenting" from St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict for the previous 35 years ...

But I think the key word now may be GRAVE.

Far, far, far  more grave than _anything_ under Bl. Paul VI.

Who knows - maybe even St Pio would be speaking out now if he were with us today.

Struggling to know HOW to speak.

Any thoughts on what obedience to the Pope and what TRUE "faithful dissent" would looks like in this more grave than ever before situation ...?

I would say that Padre Pio was pretty shielded from whatever was going on outside his monastery.  While he could read souls, he was of course not omniscient and did not
know everything.  I would venture to say he probably did not read much of what was in the Vatican II Documents.  Being that obedience was so ingrained in him and being a mystic, he would not have given himself to ecclesiastical ongoings for the most part.

By his death in 1968, the horrors unleashed by Vatican II were not completely evident or widespread quite yet in any case.  However he did manage to indicate he was very worried.

Cardinal Bacci related that: Even before the end of the Council, in February 1965, someone announced to Padre Pio that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, ad experimentum, in the vernacular, which had been devised by a conciliar liturgical commission in order to respond to the "aspirations" of modern man. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio let a complaint escape in the presence of the Pope's messenger: "For pity sake, end the Council quickly." (With Latin in the Service of the Popes: the Memoirs of Antonio Cardinal Bacci (1885 - 1971).

Padre Pio suspected freemasonry in the Vatican and Paul VI specifically.  He intended for it to be exposed.

"Almost sixty years ago, Padre Pio first met Father Luigi Villa, whom he entreated to devote his entire life to fight Ecclesiastical Freemasonry. Padre Pio told Father Villa that Our Lord had designs upon him and had chosen him to be educated and trained to fight Freemasonry within the Church. The Saint spelled out this task in three meetings with Father Villa, which took place in the last fifteen years of life of Padre Pio. At the close of the second meeting [second half of 1963], Padre Pio embraced Father Villa three times, saying to him: ‘Be brave, now…for the Church has already been invaded by Freemasonry!’ and then stated: ‘Freemasonry has already made it into the loafers (shoes) of the Pope!’ At the time, the reigning Pope was Paul VI. " padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Padre_Pio___Fr.html

If he had lived longer or had been in better health, I have no doubt he would have shook the world with his reaction to the doctrinal and liturgical revolution.  But, God took
him mercifully.  We were all the poorer for it, however. 
I think had St. Pio been younger and in better health he certainly would have fought against what was going on more forcefully. He was nearing the end of his life and wasn't doing all too great health wise. Plus the NO really didn't come into force until after his death. I'm sure had he been around to see the destruction he would have definitely spoken out. I doubt that he could imagine that it would have ended up as bad as it did.
Dubia debacle shows the Church is in a ‘religious civil war’, says famed Catholic historian

If this is the first this historian is noticing this then I would like to know under what rock he has been hiding.