Bp. Fellay & Roman Catholic Theologians Accuse Francis of Heresy

Several dozen tradition-minded Roman Catholic theologians, priests and academics have formally accused Pope Francis of spreading heresy with his 2016 opening to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

In a 25-page letter delivered to Francis last month and provided Saturday to The Associated Press, the 62 signatories issued a "filial correction" to the pope — a measure they said hadn't been employed since the 14th century.

The letter accused Francis of propagating seven heretical positions concerning marriage, moral life and the sacraments with his 2016 document "The Joy of Love" and subsequent "acts, words and omissions."

The initiative follows another formal act by four tradition-minded cardinals who wrote Francis last year asking him to clarify a series of questions, or "dubbia," they had about his 2016 text.

Francis hasn't responded to either initiative. The Vatican spokesman didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment late Saturday.

None of the signatories of the new letter is a cardinal, and the highest-ranking churchman listed is actually someone whose organization has no legal standing in the Catholic Church: Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the breakaway Society of St. Pius X.

Several other signatories are well-known admirers of the old Latin Mass which Fellay's followers celebrate.

But organizers said the initiative was nevertheless significant and a sign of the concern among a certain contingent of academics and pastors over Francis' positions, which they said posed a danger to the faithful.

"There is a role for theologians and philosophers to explain to people the church's teaching, to correct misunderstandings," said Joseph Shaw, a spokesman for the initiative, signatory of the correction and senior research fellow in moral philosophy at Oxford University.

When it was released in April 2016, "The Joy of Love" immediately sparked controversy because it opened the door to letting civilly remarried Catholics receive Communion. Church teaching holds that unless these Catholics obtain an annulment — a church decree that their first marriage was invalid — they cannot receive the sacraments, since they are seen as committing adultery.

Francis didn't create a church-wide pass for these Catholics, but suggested — in vague terms and strategically placed footnotes — that bishops and priests could do so on a case-by-case basis after accompanying them on a spiritual journey of discernment.

Subsequent comments and writings have made clear he intended such wiggle room, part of his belief that God's mercy extends in particular to sinners and that the Eucharist isn't a prize for the perfect but nourishment for the weak.

Shaw said none of the four cardinals involved in the initial "dubbia" letter, nor any other cardinal, was involved in the "filial correction."

Organizers said the last time such a correction was issued was to Pope John XXII in 1333 for errors which he later recanted.

LINK HERE Chicago Tribune

Views: 229

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is about time!!  Thank you to the signers/writers.

Yes I so agree it is about time but there are no less than a thousand unanswered questions happening with this. 

It is well known that Francis is now willynilly "excommunicating" ANYONE who even dares raise the least criticism of anything he does yet he has this letter since August but instead of his usual evil response he rolls out the red carpet for the SSPX while they were in Rome (following receipt of the letter) for their pilgrimage and allows them to say Masses in all the Major Basilicas.  He responds to this with absolutely not one word, instead he ups his false niceness towards them.  This is odd at best. 

Frank is currently on the warpath "deleting" any and all conservatives from every meaningful post/office at the Vatican and in the Church in general.  Cardinal Sarah is next on the list to be axed.

YET to this open accusation of heresy, and rightfully has he been accused, he says nothing.  He continues to smother the SSPX with sweetness, albeit a poisonous sweetness.  Let the Society break all ties with these devils before it is too late.  If anyone thinks Frank will break the ties they are sorely mistaken.  The devil has the SSPX right where they want them, caught in the spiders web of deception. 

Another question is why isn't Cardinal Burke or Bp. Athansius Schneider's name found on here?  They said it is because they were not asked.  Why weren't they asked?

Why is it that only one District Superior of the SSPX is on this letter, namely Fr. Robert Brucciani.  Where are all the other District Superior's signatures?   Many, many of the SSPX D.S. have voiced their unwillingness to move toward Rome recently.  One would imagine they would have been more than happy to add their names to this list.

It is about time something, anything, like this was done.  But to many, this raises more questions than it answers.

The letter was initially given to Francis privately but after 30 days with what I assume was no response one of those who signed the letter contacted the Associated Press and made a press release of the letter.  If I remember what I read right it seemed to be someone from the Society but I haven't yet been able to confirm that.

I would like to see if Francis changes his "nicey nice" tune now that this has gone public.  If he remains the same old same old, than I'm sorry but I would have to look at this more cautiously than I would like.  Francis doesn't ever return nicey when criticized or rebuked or confronted or corrected.  He turns rather into a madman.

Well maybe Francis wasn't exactly "silent" to this accusation...he did respond of sorts with what appears to be a possible firm act of rebellion, cementing himself in his outright heresy.

Pope blessed our union, claims wife of divorced and remarried Colombian president

edited

I agree.  When he went to Columbia recently, and made the pronouncement that he would give the bishop heads of diocese the right to determine the "language" of the liturgy (whatever that means) , the day after he suffered a black eye.  A coincidence?  Maybe, maybe not.   BUT, perhaps the pronouncement was his response to this letter, an "up yours" moment.  The black eye?  Another "up yours"  moment but by who (but I digress...). Frankie just digs in even deeper by retaliating against the Faith, tradition and those aligned with tradition.  He continues to muddy and distort the Faith.   That is what the devil does.  I call it like I see it.

Why did Bp. Felley sign after the fact?  Was he notified before hand that this letter was being written and given the opportunity to sign on to it?  Or did he wait until it was published with the names, so he could see exactly who was brave enough to sign it, and THEN add his name.  Or, was he kept in the dark the whole time because the signers/writers didn't want to tell him for fear he couldn't be trusted.   Who is loyal to whom? Will those SSPXr's  religious on the list somehow lose their positions and be reassigned to the deserts of humanity...literally?  The intrigue of it all.  A chess game if sorts, I guess.    Sometime soon, someone is going to call 'checkmate' and then what?  Which side will that be?

We must keep praying for Bp. Felley that he gets courage and just calls this whole dance with the devil .....OFF.

Give all this mess to God to sort out and punish, and let the SSPX and other traditional minded orders focus on saving souls.  The time is growing shorter day by day.  I don't think God will fault him for saying to Frankie and the  Dominoes  "thanks, but no thanks".  Only God can clear up this mess....man can not, so please stop pretending that man can solve this.   Bp. Felley is no Daniel.  Sorry.

These men and women who signed this letter have great courage to call out Frank on his heretical teachings and statements.  They ARE doing their duty as Catholics in trying to save our Faith.  These warriors need our prayers because they will face retaliation from their peers and employers, no doubt.

St. Anathasius, pray for us!!! Our Mother of Sorrows, pray for us!!

Here’s why no Cardinals signed the ‘filial correction’ to Pope Francis

OXFORD, September 25, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – After the release of the historic 'filial correction' to the Pope on the weekend, many concerned Catholics have wondered why no Cardinals attached their name.

Cardinal Raymond Burke in particular has been very public about a coming “formal correction” from cardinals after Pope Francis failed to respond to their call to clarify Amoris Laetitia.

So why didn’t he or others sign this “filial correction”?

The basic answer is that the scholars and pastors behind the initiative chose not to ask any cardinals to join them.

“We wanted this to be an independent initiative,” spokesman Dr. Joseph Shaw told LifeSiteNews. “We made the decision not to include the Cardinals.”

Shaw wishes to squelch any rumours – he has seen some on social media – that there were prelates working behind the scenes. “We want to make it absolutely clear that Cardinal Burke is not behind this initiative,” he said.

The primary reason for not asking the cardinals to sign the document was prudence. “It’s not practical to expect any Cardinal to sign any document of this nature,” said Shaw, “because it comes too close to the person of the Pope.”

Shaw, a Fellow of St. Benet’s Hall, Oxford University, contrasted the 25-page Correction to the short dubia sent to Pope Francis by Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffara and Meisner in 2016. Shaw praised the dubia letter for its “simplicity” and expressions of fidelity to the Pope. He explained that a Cardinal would not readily sign off on a theological document as complex and serious as the Filial Correction written by anyone but himself.

“The more senior [churchmen] are, the more careful they will want to be with the wording,” said Shaw. “They will want brevity.”

In Shaw’s view, theologians and pastors have more freedom than prelates to lay out the arguments against Amoris Laetitia and its problems. Meanwhile, the way the Filial Correction is set out “should be helpful to a wide variety of Catholics.”

Of course, the document was originally meant for an audience of one. The Filial Correction was sent to Rome six weeks ago and, Shaw told LifeSiteNews, was handed to Pope Francis personally in Casa Santa Marta. The signers received no answer.

“If Pope Francis had responded, we would have entered into another kind of conversation,” said Shaw. “So now we are including the Catholic faithful.”

Shaw knows the media is interested in who signed and how many signed, but he says that the number of signers of the Fraternal Correction is not the point. The important issue is the arguments presented. That is why the signers are all scholars or pastors.

“The way the Church develops things is in accordance with [theological] arguments,” Shaw explained. “There is development because the leading arguments have prevailed.”  He pointed out that people argued over the dogma of the Immaculate Conception for centuries. “It’s very important that the arguments be made,” Shaw stressed.

The Filial Correction was written by a core group from among the signatories who showed it to other scholars and pastors for their comments and contributions. It was revised many times before it was signed and sent.

Shaw acknowledged that some Catholics have raised eyebrows over the signature of Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of Saint Pius X, an order of priests whose canonical status is as yet unresolved. However, he unreservedly praised the bishop.

“It’s a big statement for Bishop Fellay to make,” said Shaw. “His commitment to the truth is greater than his political concerns, [than facilitating] regularization.”

In Shaw’s opinion, the Filial Correction is a way for Fellay to communicate that to his community and “to Catholics at large.”

What do you think?

"Shaw acknowledged that some Catholics have raised eyebrows over the signature of Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of Saint Pius X, an order of priests whose canonical status is as yet unresolved. However, he unreservedly praised the bishop.

“It’s a big statement for Bishop Fellay to make,” said Shaw. “His commitment to the truth is greater than his political concerns, [than facilitating] regularization.”

In Shaw’s opinion, the Filial Correction is a way for Fellay to communicate that to his community and “to Catholics at large.”

"In Shaw’s opinion, the Filial Correction is a way for Fellay to communicate that to his community and “to Catholics at large.”

Bishop Fellay could have responded to the faithful of the SSPX directly and clearly, by condemning it as error from the beginning.  Bishop Fellay chose to test the political winds before plotting his course.  His actions toward Francis have been disastrous and many faithful are leaving to attend other chapels.  Notably, some sedevacantist organizations like the CMRI, are experiencing a dramatic increase in faithful attending their masses.  I pray that Bishop Fellay would just admit his errors in trying to negotiate with the ultra-modernists now in Rome and return to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.  

Thank you!  You articulated so well what I was thinking but having such a hard time putting in words.

Michael said:

"In Shaw’s opinion, the Filial Correction is a way for Fellay to communicate that to his community and “to Catholics at large.”

Bishop Fellay could have responded to the faithful of the SSPX directly and clearly, by condemning it as error from the beginning.  Bishop Fellay chose to test the political winds before plotting his course.  His actions toward Francis have been disastrous and many faithful are leaving to attend other chapels.  Notably, some sedevacantist organizations like the CMRI, are experiencing a dramatic increase in faithful attending their masses.  I pray that Bishop Fellay would just admit his errors in trying to negotiate with the ultra-modernists now in Rome and return to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.  

This was Sean Johnson's take on it...

"Meanwhile, Bishop Fellay has given his reasons for signing to FSSPX.News.

While still absorbing the contents of His Excellency’s response, another on the French Resistance forum offers this preliminary assessment:
“Bishop Fellay took a running train, that of the healthy reaction of some Conservatives internal to the Conciliar Church. At the same time, he does not want to lose what he has already acquired on the road to the prelature.
Hence: He participates in a reaction (which does not attack VII) to reassure his right wing and at the same time, he relativizes this participation to reassure the left wing … And the turn is played!”
Time will tell, but what remains clear is this:
That Francis would grant canonical approval to an uncompromised, virile and vigorous enemy (i.e., the SSPX of old) is manifestly irrational and illogical.  Therefore, if the SSPX has gained privileges, concessions, and incremental regularization and partial jurisdiction, it is the clearest sign that the SSPX is not the same animal as its former self.
Conversely, if Bishop Fellay has gone to such extreme measures as those mentioned above to ensure he (or his priests and bishops) do not offend modernist Rome, his explanation remains an enigma:
Why does Bishop Fellay perceive a duty to proclaim the truth in this matter of Amoris Laetitia, yet say in the CNS interview that religious liberty was very limited (and therefore implicitly acceptable); that Vatican II belongs to the tradition of the Church; that 95% of Vatican II is acceptable; or shrink from condemning an offense against the First Commandment at Assisi?
We return to the tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question of Fr. Pivert: Has Bishop Fellay converted?"

And Bp. Fellay's explanation HERE

Bp. Fellay's explanation sounds good enough, especially as talking points, but he's winked at the importance of sound doctrine enough times that I have no way of knowing if this represents a real change on B. F.'s part or if he's just trying to staunch the exodus from Society by former members who have gotten fed up with his so-called "leadership."

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2020   Created by Dawn Marie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service