Get A First Look: NEW Website Coming May 13

  1. Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

  2. New Site Coming

  3. On Borrowed Time

  4. Lenten Mission


Renowned Philosopher and Friend of John Paul II:
"Pope Must Act To Avoid Schism and Heresy"

by Christopher A. Ferrara
September 26, 2016

The Catholic Church is being rocked to its foundations in the aftermath of the publication of Amoris laetitia and Pope Francis’ “confidential” (and promptly leaked) letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires affirming that the admission of public adulterers in “second marriages” to Holy Communion is the only correct interpretation of Amoris.

Now we read that a friend of the late Pope John Paul II, the renowned Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert, has declared in a video interview that certain statements in Amoris are “objectively heretical” and that the Pope must act to correct them “to avoid schism and to avoid heresy and to avoid the complete split in the Church…” Professor Seifert is one of 45 signatories, Catholic scholars from the mainstream of the Church, to a document that details numerous heterodox and even heretical propositions in Amoris and calls upon the Pope to condemn them.

The critique, sent to every cardinal in the Church, has thus far produced no remedial action by Francis. Meanwhile, the “split in the Church” of which Seifert warns is already underway, and recent developments indicate that Francis himself is promoting it. These developments are summed up on the website of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), which has reportedly been offered by Francis a juridical framework for the total regularization of its canonical mission.

As the SSPX notes: “In Germany: They [the divorced and “remarried”] already receive communion,” while in the Philippines the word from the bishops’ conference, following Amoris, is “we will do it” because “Mercy cannot wait. Mercy should not wait!” and “those in irregular unions should be invited to ‘the table of sinners at which the All-Holy Lord offers himself as food for the wretched.’” In Poland, Francis reportedly told the Polish bishops in private that each local bishops’ conference can decide the matter for itself, while in Buenos Aires, as already noted, he has declared that Holy Communion for public adulterers in “certain cases” is the only correct interpretation of Amoris.

On the other hand, “the Alberta and Northwest Territory bishops stated in pastoral guidelines that the Catholic Church has not changed her practice towards divorced and civilly remarried Catholics” and that they must repent of their adultery and commit to an amendment of life by ceasing their adulterous relations before receiving absolution and being admitted to Holy Communion. The same is true for Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, who insists that the Church’s bimillenial teaching and Eucharistic discipline remain in effect and that divorced and “remarried” people, if they cannot separate on account of children, must live chastely in order to be admitted to the sacraments. Likewise Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, pointedly ignoring Amoris, declares that he will abide by “the Church’s Magisterium especially that of Blessed Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI which reaffirm the constant tradition of the Church.”

Then again, Archbishop Cupich of Chicago, a notorious archliberal whom Francis elevated to this major episcopal key, has already gone beyond mere sacrilegious Communion for public adulterers in “second marriages” to declare that even those involved in “homosexual unions” involving the habitual practice of sodomy may approach the Blessed Sacrament if they “come to a decision in good conscience” and that the Church should “help them move forward and to respect that.”

Perhaps the most astute view of this terrifying situation is expressed by the SSPX: “Is Amoris laetitia bringing division within the Church or is it rather manifesting heresies and schisms already present among the clergy throughout the world?” I would have to say that the answer is both. As Father Ray Blake has observed with admirable candor and no little courage, given the prevailing banana republic ethos Bergoglianism has engendered: “It is an irony that the Pope, himself, ‘the minister of unity’ should become the focus and source of disunity. Perhaps that is precisely what the Conclave of 2013 desired when it elected Jorge Bergoglio, he was already known as a divisive figure in both the Society of Jesus and his home diocese of Buenos Aires.”

John Allen’s piece on this development concludes that “Whether by design or not, what Pope Francis effectively has done is to opt for decentralization on one of the most contentious issues in Catholic life today.” Allen recounts that when he asked the now-retired Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria about the “decentralization option” during the Phony Synod on the Family, Arinze replied: “Are you going to tell me that we can have a national bishops’ conference in one country that would approve something which, in another conference, would be seen as sin? Is sin going to change according to national borders? We’d become national churches.”

God help us! When 45 scholars of the Catholic mainstream petition a Pope to repudiate the numerous errors in his own document lest schism ensue, we know that the Church is experiencing an unprecedented event. Remember that according to Cardinal Mario Ciappi, another friend of John Paul II who was no less than his personal papal theologian, the Third Secret predicts that “the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” If this situation does not represent apostasy, spreading everywhere with the aid of the Pope himself, then words have lost their meaning.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!