Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Liam, what I meant to bring out is that the essential difference between Fr. Curran's "dissent" and the present correction is that Fr. Curran was registering a protest against what the Church has always taught while the signers of the Filial Correction are upholding what the Church has always taught and are asking the pope if the Ten Commandments still apply.

    Fr. Curran's heresy was that he didn't believe in the Church's constant teaching on contraception and was urging Catholics to dissent from it.

    In the present case, the signers of the Correction are reminding the Pope that the Ten Commandments and Familiaris Consortio, 84, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis can't be erased just because Catholics feel it's too hard to follow them.

    Why hasn't the same question which has been asked by the Four (now two) Cardinals and the 68 signers been answered? This question has been asked of the Pope for over a year, and here it is again:

    1) It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29?


    It goes without saying that the signers should be respectful, and I believe they have been eminently respectful, but respect is not the primary issue. The primary issue is whether the answer to the question is "Si" or "No". We can debate respect and methodology until the cow comes home, but at the end of the day this controversy cannot be resolved unless the question is answered.

    Fr. Curran has nothing in common with the signers of this letter. Rather, he has everything in common with the writers of Amoris Laetitia because, just like Fr. Charlie, the writers of that encyclical were looking for a way to "discreetly" do away with the teaching of Familiaris Consortio, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia and Sacramentum Caritatis.

    Arbp. Forte is on record as saying that the Pope told him that he wanted to change the Church's perennial teaching in such a way as not to leave the papal fingerprints on it:

    “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, (but) do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.” “Typical of a Jesuit,” Abp Forte joked (6).


    The whole process of opening up Communion to the divorced and remarried has been dishonest from the beginning, because our Holy Father was telling us to listen to "the God of Surprises" to hear what He was saying, when, in reality, according to the words of Arbp. Forte, the conclusion was predetermined and fixed from the beginning.

    After a year of refusing a simple "yes" or "no" response to a serious question, the question must be openly asked, "Do they have an answer?" and "If they have an answer, why are they so afraid to give it?"

    Why is the Pope willing to risk splitting the Church rather than give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question? Could it be that if he answers "yes" that will shine the light on the fact that Catholics don't believe the same doctrine, and if he answers "no", then what was the purpose of this exercise in the first place?
  • Charles,

    In God's Providence, even a wicked pope (should such a thing ever happen) could work for the good.

    Neither I nor anyone I know is proposing killing His Holiness.

    Liam,

    Do you mean that Pope Francis' statements are intended to stir up the faithful, so as to allow proper collegial governance of the Church?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,007
    CGZ

    In part, yes.
  • ...(should such a thing ever happen)... ...(as has happened a few times)...

    (Corrected)
    Thanked by 3CharlesW dad29 PaxTecum