St Peter's Basilica

St Peter's Basilica

Subscribe to EverythingCatholicBlog

Search This Blog

Tuesday, 31 January 2017

The Blindness of the ‘Dubia Cardinals’ and their supporters!


burke-meisner-brandmuller-caffarra




In the last two months Catholics have heard a lot of talk about the Dubia [Doubts] – the letter sent by four ‘Cardinals’ to ‘Pope’ Francis asking for clarifications on ambiguous texts in the ‘Apostolic Exhortation’ Amoris laetitia (AL). The four ‘Cardinals’ are the American Raymond Burke, the Italian Carlo Cafarra, and the Germans Walter Brandmuller and Joachim Meisner. Burke is the only active Prelate; the three others are retired.


The Dubia are five questions addressed to Francis requesting a response. It is a tradition in the Church for Prelates to approach the Sacred Congregations of the Holy See, or even the Pope, with their questions, written very clearly and briefly. Normally they receive concise answers, a simple Yes or No.



These questions – whose full text and context we can read here – basically address this question: 

Is it possible for a civilly divorced and remarried Catholic who did not receive a Church annulment of his first marriage to receive 'Communion'? 

This question is motivated by the fact that some parts of Amoris laetitia strongly insinuate that this permission is granted. In other words, the basic question of the 'Cardinals' is this: 


Is it possible for a person in mortal sin to receive Communion?


The questions were first sent to Francis and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but given that the 'Cardinals' did not receive an answer, they made their document public on November 14, 2016. 

Since then, various interviews and declarations of Burke and Brandmuller have fed the discussion.


I am not taking the 'cardinals' seriously, but we have to look carefully at how deceptive the Novus ordo religion is and how utterly blind its prelates are including those calling themselves 'traditional Catholics'. these so called 'traditional Catholics' are nothing but those who do not like the reign of anti pope Francis but are comfortable with the reign of the great Apostate, John Paul II. I am simply trying to show how blind these pretend cardinals are and how equally blind their supporters. 

Given this status quaestionis, what should we think about the Dubia?

To be objective and clear, let me distinguish three different perspectives interfused in this problem.

1. Logically speaking

If we consider the content of both Amoris laetitia and the 'Cardinals'’ document from the logical perspective, we see that the dissenting 'Prelates' seem to take a win-win position. It is obvious that a Pope cannot explicitly allow anyone to receive Communion if he is in state of mortal sin.


If the Pope were to explicitly permit this, he would point-blank commit sacrilege, induce the entire Church to do so and separate himself from the past Magisterium of the Church and consequently such a pope loses office. So, it is obvious that the 'Pope' will not blatantly say: “Yes, I am allowing a person in mortal sin to receive Communion.”


It is also obvious that he will not say clearly: “No, no one can receive Communion in the state of mortal sin.” For, in fact, he is insinuating as much as possible that divorced/remarried people can receive Communion.



So, if it is obvious that he cannot say Yes or No, why did the Cardinals write their letter? Since they knew that they would not receive an answer, they deliberately chose to put Francis in a very embarrassing situation. 

Why?


In the strategic analysis (below n. 3) I will analyze this doubt about the aim of the Dubia.


Still addressing the content, why did the 'Cardinals' ignore many other situations as grave as the one they focused on? Indeed, in Amoris laetitia Francis opened doors not only for divorced/remarried Catholics to receive Communion, but also for a whole slew of others in scandalous situations who are objectively in mortal sin, such as those who engage in pre-marital sex, cohabit regularly without being married, use artificial methods of birth control and practice homosexuality. These points were analyzed in a study of Amoris laetitia seen here.



This omission becomes still more suspicious when we consider that if the 'Cardinals' would have exposed the full specter of insinuations in Amoris laetitia, it would become clear that Francis uses insinuations as a method to open doors for abuses in doctrinal matters where he pretends he cannot do so explicitly. Why did the 'Cardinals' not speak about this method?


If this method of liberalizing the need to be in the state of grace to receive the 'Sacraments' would have been clearly exposed by the 'Cardinals', it would have reinforced the fact that the 'Pope' cannot answer their Dubia. 


Again, the question arises: Why did they write their letter when it was clear that Francis would not answer?


Further, why did they make no mention of the multitude of other writings, speeches, actions and gestures so frequently made by Francis during this false pontificate that directly and indirectly favor allowing people in the state of mortal sin – even the sin of heresy – to receive 'Communion'? The same doubts of letter B are reinforced by this omission.


2. Morally speaking


A. From the moral point of view, it appears very good for supposed Catholics to have four 'Cardinals' who reinforce the traditional teaching of the Church. We live in a horrible world, morally speaking, and for us it is most opportune to have the perennial truths of the Church reaffirmed by 'religious authorities'. We have a certain number of traditionalist priests and a few Bishops who still repeat the immutable doctrine of the Church. But it is very salutary to see four Cardinals taking a correct position.



B. A grave moral fault, that usually characterize Novus Ordo prelates that I observed in the explanatory letter following the Dubia is that the 'Cardinals' are proponents of love as the primary goal of marriage.

Taking this position, they adhere to the revolution made by the evil Vatican II, which inverted the goals of marriage. The traditional goals were: first, procreation and the education of the offspring; second, mutual support of the spouses. By presenting love as the first goal, the 'Cardinals' show that they do not want to return to the traditional Magisterium as they purport to do.



C. Another moral flaw that I see in their statement is that, despite some few mentions of the Commandments and one quote from the Gospel, almost the totality of their documentation is based on the teaching of John Paul II, the great Apostate.  The 'Cardinals' publicly affirm that they are repeating the traditional doctrine, but the documents they quote are only those of the post-Vatican II 'Pope' Wojtyla.


Now then, John Paul II was very far from being a master of sound morality. Although he sometimes repeated the traditional teaching of the Church, habitually his moral approach was a tributary of the Personalism of Max Scheler, which is opposed to the traditional philosophy of the Church. 


His theology of the body is clearly immoral; eulogies of nudism are not rare in his works, and in the World Youth Days he implicitly promoted free love among youth. If the 'Cardinals' wanted to defend the perennial morals of the Church, why did they base themselves on this contaminated source?



The 'Cardinals'’ failure to quote the immense ensemble of traditional documents of the Church on marriage and Communion is an omission showing clearly the idea that the Novus Ordo religion – to which the four 'Cardinals' belong – is different from the Magisterium prior to Vatican II and therefore not the Catholic Church. 


One could even say that the 'Cardinals' themselves are in practical schism regarding the past of the Church. However, this is the very accusation made by 'Bishop' Schneider and, more recently, 'Card'. Brandmuller, against those who do not accept the teachings of John Paul II. Why this contradictory position?

3. Strategically Speaking


With the increase of speed in the Bergoglian Revolution, which was set up by none other than Benedict XVI, the number of reactions against Francis is growing. Recently even a newspaper like The Wall Street Journal labeled him “the leader of the global left.”

To catalyze these reactions, nothing could be more convenient than the emergence of a religious false right that would draw together all the discontent conservatives in the Church and prevent them from seeking an authentic Catholic Church and leadership.

This is what seems to be the goal of the four 'Cardinals', principally of 'Card'. Burke, who is the most expressive and outspoken member of the group. His principal acolyte in the public arena is 'Bishop' Schneider, whose  decietful role in Novus Ordo religion is duly noted. 




If this is true, which I believe it is, then this would explain why the Dubia were written with the certainty that it would not have an answer. Its goal would be to apparently put Francis in an embarrassing position. But in reality the writers would be playing the same game, allowing Francis to advance with a controlled reaction.



How will all this end? It could end as suggested by the new General Superior of the Jesuits, Fr. Arturo Sosa: 

“In our language of the Jesuits, we say that it is necessary to know the opinion of all in order to make a true communal discernment.”

In other words, the Novus Ordo religion may utilize this reaction to increase “pluralism” in the 'Church', which means that we could well have two parties in apparent opposition living together in the Vatican. This would help the Novus Ordo religion to become a democracy, one of the main goals of Che Bergoglio.

Indeed, there is nothing short of blindness in these pretend cardinals and their followers. They simply want to appear catholic while in actual fact they want to promote the conservative side of their false religion hinging it on the great Apostate, John Paul II. those 'catholics' who praise Burke or Schneider and people like them are just so blind that they can barely see their noses.



Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, on the feast day of St. John Bosco, 31st January 2017


1 comment:

  1. It is obvious to me that Malachy Mary Igwilo writes of blindness as one who is blind attempting to lead the blind. Amoris Laetitia is a comprehensive study of the need for the Church in it's Priesthood to provide moral direction to those who are not Sacramentally Married primarily and to those who are Sacramentally Married secondarily. Reception of Holy Communion has not changed since the beginning of the Church when Saint Paul exhorted it's members to examine themselves before receiving. The Church is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete