Episode Transcript
Speaker 1 00:00:03 Hi, I'm Maria Preuss, you know, in the name of the father and the son and the Holy spirit. Amen. Okay. As we've noted over the past few weeks right now, we're having an absolutely Epic disaster Henry the eighth moment in the Catholic church. And as we've also noted in order to really appreciate the situation and each one of us does need to appreciate this and they need to understand it each one of us in order to make sense of what's going on right now, between the Pope and the four Cardinals in order to really appreciate what's going on and why it matters. It really matters. We needed to get some perspective. And so we started by reviewing some fundamental points of the unchanging and unchangeable Catholic faith. First, we reviewed some of the fundamental teachings regarding marriage. Then we reviewed some of the basic teachings regarding the SAC and penance.
Speaker 1 00:01:00 Then we reviewed some of the basic teaching regarding the reception of Holy communion. After that, we took a close look at some of the basic teachings regarding the magisterium. Magisterium is the teaching authority of the church. It's composed the pulps and the bishops and union with him and it functions to transmit, to safeguard and to clarify the deposit of faith, all the saving truth that Christ gave us to transmit, clarify, and, and stave card that down to the end of time, Kevin, the last time we looked at a few of Pope Francis statements regarding marriage and at the pastoral application of a Morris, the teats here, and a number of diocese in which the Pope has to varying degrees shown his approval. And we saw that in each instance, active adulterers are to be given Holy communion. So it's truly a Henry the eighth moment in the church, the great Catholic Stan Bishop Athanasius, Schneider sums up the situation quo admitting the divorce remarried to Holy communion without first demanding of them to live in continents and not to violate their sacramental bonds of marriage, not demanding of them to repent and to make a very serious intention to not sin in the future.
Speaker 1 00:02:26 And so dispensing them from this we're at the same time, destroying desecrated three sacraments, which Christ gave us the sacrament of penance, the sacrament of Eucharist, the sacrament of marriage, close code, Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Speaker 1 00:02:47 Now we finally got the background for the current situation. So today we're going to talk about the dubia as usual, the quotes we edited and cut and pasted. There's too many sources to side each one of my ketones sermon. It's also important to note that today we're not going to cover every detail, every possible nuance. There's a lot more that could be said, we're simply going to give enough here so that everyone has enough information to crass situation. There's a lot more that could be said, but to sermon. So do our best to give you the basics. It's definitely a very challenging topic. I'll do my best to give you all as balanced and whole review as we can in the time that we have questions first off, what are we referring to when we use the word Dubya answer in this context, we referring to five short questions submitted to the poll, which each call for either a yes or a no answer question.
Speaker 1 00:03:56 Okay. So what's the point. Why ask the pole these? Yes or no questions answered because these questions all have to do with getting an authentic clarification of the meaning of certain points written about in chapter eight of a Morris <inaudible> question who submitted these Dubya these questions to the Paul answered for Cardinals Colonel brand ruler, kind of Burke <inaudible> carnal Burke is the only one of these men. Who's not retired question. Is there any particular reason why Cardinals would have submitted these questions answered? Yes. Dave himself has pointed out that his Cardinals, they quote, are entrusted with the task of helping the pulp to care for the universal church. Close quote question. Why do the Cardinals submit these questions? Answer the cartons themselves, explain their reasons their letter was summarized by life site news. I quote the letter tells the pulp of the uncertainty, confusion and disorientation among many of the faithful stemming from the Wars, the teats you, the cars explained it they're compelled and conscious by the pastoral responsibility to call it Pope Francis with profound respect to give an answer to the questions posed reminding them that is Paul P is called by the risen one to confirm his brothers in faith and to resolve uncertainties and bring clarity, close quotes questions.
Speaker 1 00:05:41 What sort of questions do the Cardinals ask in these Dubya
Speaker 2 00:05:47 Answer?
Speaker 1 00:05:48 It's the complete list is readily available online. We won't get into every detail for today for the sake of the sermon. We'll just consider two of the they've been studly edited, but we'll still be able to get the gist of them. Okay. So the first question, following the affirmations fond of paragraphs three, 300 to 305 of the Morris tsetse has it now become possible to grant absolution, the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to a person will bound by a valid marital bond who lives in a marital warm way with another person. So what does all that mean? We'll put it in different words to everybody gets the gist of the question being asked. So put into other words, isn't true that someone who was validly married, but has abandoned his spouse and is currently living in sin with someone else. Is it true? That paragraphs 300 to 305 of them Morse, the tsetse not allow that person to be absolved and confession and thereby admitted to Holy community, even though he continues to shack up with someone to whom he's not married. Is that true? Yes or no.
Speaker 1 00:07:03 Well, y'all know the answer here. Everyone knows the answer. Everyone. Even the bishops of Malta, the bishops of the window, Steris region of Argentina and the Bishop of Rome. What's the answer. Is it true that someone who is validly married, but has abandoned his spouse and is currently living in sin, was someone else cannot be absolved and confession and thereby admitted to Holy communion, even though he continues to shack up with someone to whom he's not married. Is that true? No, no, no. A thousand times, no, it doesn't matter what a morsel TTA or the bishops of Malta or the bishops at bueno Saturday's region of Argentina, Tino, the Bishop of Rome or any other Cardinal Bishop priest theologian, you name, it doesn't matter what any or all of them, the whole world said answers. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Let's consider one more.
Speaker 1 00:08:08 The second question. After the publication of a Morris, the tsetse does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of Saint John Paul twos and six very Titus splendor, number 79, based on sacred scripture and on the tradition of the church on the existence of moral, absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts that are binding with exceptions. Okay. So what does that question mean? Once again, we'll put it in different words. So everyone gets the gist of it. Put into other words. Is it true as taught by sacred scripture and sacred tradition that intrinsically evil acts are intrinsically evil acts or even things blasts to me, San Francisco behavior, adultery contraception. They are by deficient definition, always in everywhere. Wrong. They're never any certain stances where they can be done morally. Okay. So the question is, is, is it true? It's taught by sacred scripture and sacred edition that intrinsically evil acts are always never prohibited without any exceptions. Is that true? Yes or no?
Speaker 1 00:09:24 Well, you all know the answer to that one too. And everyone else how's that answer. We include the bishops of Malta and the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Argentina, the Bishop of Rome. What's the answer. Is it true as taught by sacred scripture and sacred edition that intrinsically evil acts like blast me, like adultery are always in everywhere wrong. They're never in these circumstances, which they can done morally. In other words, is it true to intrinsically evil acts are intrinsically evil. In other words, that they're always permitted everyone everywhere. Is that a yes or no? Of course it's yes, of course. Intrinsically evil acts are intrinsically evil and they're always, and everywhere prohibited with no acception and it doesn't matter which more strategic or the Bishop's a motto or the bishops of the window Sarah's region of Argentina or the Bishop of Rome or any other Cardinal Bishop priest or theologian. The whole world says the answer is yes, intrinsically evil acts are intrinsically evil and are always never where, but a period close the book.
Speaker 1 00:10:45 Okay. So we've looked at two of the questions. The rest are all in similar vein. Everyone has the basic idea here. These are simple. Yes or no questions asking in so many words, whether or not Morris, the TT has changed specific teachings. Each of these questions pertains to teachings that are already found in scripture and tradition teachings, which have been infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium, which is where you remember pertains to those truths, which have been taught always and everywhere by all. These are very, very serious questions. They're literally salvation issue type questions. Each one of them is literally concerned with salvation issues and they're all yes or no. And everyone of you here, just as soon as you know what the question is already knows the answer to each one of these questions.
Speaker 1 00:11:47 Question. When was the Pope presented with these five to answer on the feast of Saint January's, September 19th, 2016, almost 160 days ago. Question what sort of response to these? Yes or no questions to the Pope give to the Cardinal's answer. He refused to answer question out of the card is respond to the Pope's refusal to answer answer. They waited almost two months and then released a copy of the letter to the pulp, as well as a copy of the five Dubya long explanation of their actions. The explanation to summarize by life site news quote, in a note explaining to the faithful, their release of the letter. The cartel is really real. The letter had its origin in deep pastoral concern about the grave dissertation and great confusion of many faithful regarding extremely important matters for life. For the church. As Carlos, they wrote there and trusted with the task of helping the Pope to care for the universal church.
Speaker 1 00:12:56 The Fort Carlos interpreted the Pope's decision, not to respond as an invitation to continue the reflection and the discussion calmly and with respect, most chose to inform the tire. People have thought about our initiative offering all of the documentation close quo question. Okay. So in September, these cartons presented the Pope with five Doobie, with five, yes or no questions pertain to statements in a Morris. The tsetse asking them with regards to the confusion and chaos to quote, confirm his brothers in the faith to resolve uncertainties and bring clarity and close quote. And the pole refuse to answer. After waiting some two months, the card was then released their letter and the Doobie and the poll still has an answer. And meanwhile, and various dice, these throughout the world, unrepentant adulterers are being invited to receive communion. So things are a gigantic mess. What happens next? You answer one of the four cartons kind of brand moon said the Cardinals expect a response to the dubia. As the lack of response would be seen by many within the church as a rejection of the cleared our ticket here once to clearly defined doctrine.
Speaker 1 00:14:26 So the cartels expect response, and if they don't get one, Cardinal Burke has spoken of a formal correction, a quote from interview. What happens if the pulp does not respond to your act of justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the churches teaching that you hope to achieve Cardinal Burke, then we would have to address that situation. There is the tradition of the church, the practice of correction of the Roman pontiff. It is something that is clearly quite rare, but if there is no response to these questions, then I would say it would be a question of taking a formal act of correction of a serious error, close quote and quote. You have spoken about a potential upcoming formal correction of Pope Francis. Should he continue to refuse to answer the dubia express by you and other Cardinals with the Volcker support of numerous theologians in tens of thousands of faithful?
Speaker 1 00:15:25 Can you describe that for us? Cardinal Burke will the dubia have to have a response because they have to do with the very foundations of the moral life and of the churches, constant teaching with regard to good and evil with regard to various sacred realities like marriage and Holy communion and so forth, what format it would take is very simple. Namely, it would be direct even as a Adobe, only in this case, there would no longer be raising questions, but confronting the confusing statements in March, the TMCA with what has been the church's constant teaching and practice and thereby correcting the Morris, the teats yet it's an old Institute and the church, the correction of the pole, this is not happened in recent centuries, but there are examples. And it's carried out with absolute respect for the office, the successor of st. Peter. In fact, the correction of the pole is actually, we have safeguarding at office and its exercise question.
Speaker 1 00:16:33 Why is this formal correction important answer? Before we answer that we have to start with a very, very important principle. And that is no one can check the Pope question. What does that mean to say that no one can judge the Pope answer. I quote cannon 1404 from the code of Canon law. The first C is judged by no knowing from a commentator. It is a fundamental principle based upon divine law that the first see the Roman pontiff cannot be judged by any human power, ecclesiastical or civil. This is a prerogative, which being the Supreme judge and the church, even the Pope himself cannot pronounce close quote, the Canon law society of great Britain and Ireland. In other words, the pulp is judged by no man, because he has no earthly superior and therefore cannot be removed except by God or condemned, except by a feature pulp. This is really important. The pulp is judged by no man, since he has no earthly superior and therefore cannot be removed except by God we're condemned, except by future Pope.
Speaker 1 00:17:57 Each one of us needs to keep this firmly in mind. Now the Pope is judged by no man, as he has no earthly superior cannot be rude except by God condemned, except by for a future Pope. We need to keep that firmly in mind because for the rest of this sermon, we're going to be talking about the possibility of a heretical pulp. Be very careful not to fall into his trap. Ask her lady right now to help you listen carefully to everything, to suspend your judgment during this sermon right now, to get the whole picture and to listen to the whole thing. It's going to take a while to explain all this and remember that no one judges, the Publix of God, he's right there. It's not here in the pulpit. He's not there in the pews. That's who judges the poll. What we're going to talk about is very dangerous. So please listen carefully to all of it. So you all can see how it fits together and don't fall into the trap. The object of this sermon is not to attempt a bunch of y'all to fall into hell JC Ben Warren asked her lady for help right now, let's start this section by talking about heresy and heretical statements.
Speaker 1 00:19:19 Question. If someone writes or says something heretical, if they make a radical statement, does that mean that he's a heretic answer in order to answer that question here, we need to first make sure we know what a radical statement is. Then we need to know, make sure we know what a hair tick is. Okay. So first off, what is a heretical statement? A radical statement is a statement that contradicts a divinely revealed true. It expresses a false doctrine or a false interpretation of a true doctrine. For example, denying anything in the creed would be heretical statement denying that our lady is the mother of God would be a heretical statement. Okay. So heretical statement is a state that contradicts a divinely revealed. True. Does that mean that someone who makes or believes that such statements is a heretic?
Speaker 1 00:20:16 No. It is not a person who makes your beliefs equal States is, could be someone who's poorly catechized, ignorant or just wrong, but he might very well not be a heretic. Now this is super easy to understand once we know what a heretic is. Okay. So what is a heretic? An actual heretic also known as a formal heretic is a baptized person who is guilty of the voluntary and obstinate denial of one or more truths revealed by God and proposed by the church for belief. In other words, he's guilty of formal contempt of the truthfulness and authority of God himself. This is serious, serious business. A formal heretic has that voluntary and obstinate note to him. He willingly and obstinately sticking to this position, a formal heritage, but committing this horrific mortal sin instantly loses a supernatural gift of faith and hope and share.
Speaker 1 00:21:36 It's all gone. All of it. Every last speck gone formal hair tech has fallen from supernatural Heights to absolute depths of sin. Saint Thomas points up at the smallest amount of grace and a person is greater than entire creation. And in the formal heart tick, it's all gone. He's thrown away the gift of faith, the faith without which is impossible to please God. And God's under absolutely no obligation to restore that faith. Absolutely no obligation. This man willingly threw it away, which means bombing. It absolutely astounding miracle that this man, this formal heretic is going to hell forever.
Speaker 1 00:22:37 So the man who makes her belief statements that contradicted a violently Rick truth, but doesn't realize his truth was divinely revealed and proposed by treasury for belief that man, which is wrong, he doesn't sin against the faith, but the formal heretic is the man. The baptized man that only made it not only makes her belief statements that contradict the divinely revealed true, but he also actually realizes what he's doing. He actually realizes that the church proposes his truth as being divinely revealed. If you deliberately willfully and obstinate continues to stick to his errors and barring and absolutely astonished miracle, he's damned himself
Speaker 2 00:23:21 Questions.
Speaker 1 00:23:22 Now, what does all this have to do with the dubia answering? We've seen the questions are very, very serious. Let's take a closer look at what we mean by very, very serious. Carl Burke has explained that quote, we're not asking the questions as a merely formal exercise. We're not asking you questions about a positive ecclesiastical law. That is laws that are made by the herself. These are questions that have to do with the natural moral law and the fundamental teaching of the gospel
Speaker 2 00:23:54 Close call.
Speaker 1 00:23:56 These are questions that have to do with the natural moral law. The fundamental teaching of the gospel. One professor wisely points out the implications here. Quote, pro fantasy adherence to the positions mentioned the dubia is not claimed to be formally heretical, but it's taken to be simply erroneous. That is to be made in ignorance to the fact that rejections of divinely revealed truth. The reason for taking this stand is presumably any Catholic and especially the Supreme pot should be given the benefit of a doubt when they express heretical views and not be accused of heresy until they uphold these views per tenaciously. After being informed that these views are heretical. This characterization of the statements that Pope Francis is erroneous does, however, imply their content is actually heretical, which may shock some Catholics close quotes, dr. John Lamont. Okay. So the Doobie had to do with the Bronies statements made by Pope Francis regarding the natural moral law and the fundamental teaching, the gospel statements whose contact is actually heretical. Remember, remember that no one judges the pulp, except God. So even though these are heretical views, we have to be very, very careful. Give the Pope every benefit of the doubt and judge who accused him of errors. Okay. Question. Is it possible for a Pope to be a heretic?
Speaker 2 00:25:38 Yes,
Speaker 1 00:25:41 It is possible. Just a few quick quotes. The him of creation. Now this was a collection of Canon laws put together in the 11 hundreds. It was used as parts of the churches law books right up until a hundred years ago. And the decreed immigration appears the following can attribute a Saint Boniface to martyr. Let no mortal have the presumption to accuse the Pope of fault for being incumbent on him to judge all, he should be judged by Noah, unless he departs from the faith close call that bears repeating, but no moral have the presumption accused of public fall for being incumbent upon him to judge y'all. He should be judged by no one, unless he departs from the faith, a standard theology where comments on this very kind of Canon quote the candidates of the 12th and 13th centuries. No one commented on this text creation all admitted without difficulty.
Speaker 1 00:26:47 The Pope could fall into heresy as into any other grave fault. Cause quote question, what would happen in the case of a Paul being a heretic? And since he is Nepal, it can not be judged by anyone. How could I possibly know whether or not the Pope were a heretic answer? We'll address the question about how anyone could possibly know whether or not the pulper hair tick in a minute. First, let's talk about what would happen in the case of a pole being a formal heretic. And again, there are nuances to this, some of which we'll touch on in a minute or two there's a lot here. We can only do it step by step. So please ask our lady to help you listen to not jump to conclusions. It suspend your judgment for now from an interview with Cardinal Burke quote, carnal Burke, if a pump would formally profess heresy, he would cease, but act to be the Pope it's automatic.
Speaker 1 00:27:47 So that could happen. The interviewer, just to clarify again, are you saying that Pope Francis is inherits you're as close to it. Now listen to this beautiful answer. Cardinal Burke. No, I am not saying that Pope Francis isn't heresy. I have never said that. I haven't stated that he's close to being in heresy close quote question. Colonel Burke said that if a POPAT, formerly professed heresy, he would, by that very act automatically cease to be the Pope since no one can judge the Pope. How would anyone be able to tell if he formally professed heresy? How do we know if that happened? Answer dr. John Oman quote, various explanations have been proposed of how Pope can be removed from office. If he commits the canonical crime of heresy, the explanation seek to explain how the Pope can move his office without being judged by any of his inferiors in the church on earth, the simplest and possibly the best explanation that has been offered is the Pope by pertinent atheists.
Speaker 1 00:28:51 They maintain here, see effectively removes himself from office closed quote. Okay. So the simplest and perhaps best explanation that's been offered is the Pope by pertinent, obviously maintaining heresy effectively removes himself effectively advocates. How does that work? And again, how do we know dr. Edward Peters? He's a prominent Canon lawyer has recently written a quote. The canonical tradition recognizes that a given pulp could fall into personal heresy that he might even promote such heresy publicly, the 2001 Canon law society of America. New commentary States quote shouldn't need the Pope fall into heresy. It is understood that he would lose his office to fall from Peter's fate is to fall from his chair, turning to the crucial question as to who had determined whether given Pope is fond of heresy. One may turn to canonical tradition, your friends,
Speaker 1 00:29:48 1928, popular Canon law commentary States quote though heresy, heresy, notoriously, and openly expressed the Roman pontiff. Should he fond as such is by that very fact. And before any declaratory sentence of the church deprive, it was power of jurisdiction. Now, concerning this matter, there's the fifth year of Saint Robert Bellarmine, which is rattly defended as being more approved and more common for. He was no longer a member of the body of the church that is of the church of is a visible body, cannot be the head of the universal church, but a popup falls into public hair. So you would buy that fact cease to be a member of the church. Therefore he would also upon that fact seems to be the head of the church. Meanwhile, a declarative declaratory criminal sentence, although it is merely declared declaratory brings it about not that a Pope is judged to be here to take, but remedies and shown to have been found heretical, close quotes.
Speaker 1 00:30:48 In other words, a declaration that a Pope or a formal hair take would not be a judgement of the pulp since that is not possible, who would be declaration of a fab? The fact that the Pope by his own actions, it's separate himself in the Catholic church and in, so doing lost his office. Okay, great. So now we can see that by pertinent, obviously maintain here heresy, a pulp would effectively remove himself from office and that a declaration that this had happened, it would not be a judgment of the Pope since that's not possible. We would decoration of fact, the fact that the Pope by his own actions had separated himself from the Catholic church. And so doing abdicated to the lost his office, but we're still apt listen. Very, very important questions. How does that work and who would make that declaration and upon what would it be based on no one can judge the Pope.
Speaker 1 00:31:38 Everybody. I hope sees the problem here. It's really important. And what we're talking about, the possibility to the heretical pulp. We don't have a fond air system ourselves. This is dangerous stuff. Let's talk, turn the commentary of an eminent Italian theologian, the 18th century, but Pedro Ballerini. And we'll just do this in sections here. Quote, is it not true that confronted with such a danger for the faith is this of a pole we've been only privately definitive here. See that any subjects can buy fraternal correction, warn their superior resistant to his face, refute him and unnecessary summoned him and press him to repent the Cardinals who has concerts can do this, or the Roman curler G or the Roman Senate is being met the judges opportun close quote. Okay. So we've seen that if a Pope <inaudible> the maintains here. See, by that very fact, removing himself from office, we've seen a declaration.
Speaker 1 00:32:37 This had happened would not be the pulp since it's not possible. Be declaration of a fact, the fact that the poll by his own actions had separate himself from the Catholic church and in, so doing had lost his office, but we wanted to know who might make that declaration. And five of battle really is going to explain that this declaration could be made by the car or the Roman clergy or the Roman Senate. Next, the explains upon what this declaration would be based since no one can judge the pulp. It's a long quote. So first we'll read through it all and then we'll sum it up. In other words, to make sure everybody gets the grasp. Cause this is a really important call for any person, even a private person. The words of st. Paul to Titus hole, which are found his epistle, the Titus chapter three verses 10 and 11 st.
Speaker 1 00:33:32 Paul avoid the heritage attra first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted in sins since his, since he is condemned by his own judgment, close quote, that bears are pretty scripture commands that we must avoid the heretic after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted in sin, since he's condemned by his own judgment, we continued for the person who admonished once or twice does not repent, but continues per tenacious in an upended contrary to manifest or public dog, not being able on a conduct as public pertinacity to be excused by any means of heresy properly. So called because that requires pertinacity this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals it by his own will. He is turned away from the Catholic faith and the church and such form that now no declaration of sentience of any kind whatsoever is necessary to cut him off from the body of the church.
Speaker 3 00:34:34 Therefore,
Speaker 1 00:34:35 The pulp who after such a Psalm of public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman clergy, or even by a sin, maintain himself as hardened and heresy and open, we turned him away himself away from the church that Pope would have to be avoided. According to the precepts of Saint Paul said he might not acute damage to the cause damage to the rest. He would have to have his hair seen economist publicly proclaim so that all might be able to eat. Be equally on guard in relation to him thus, the sentence which he pronounced against himself will be made known to all the church. Making clear that by his own will, he had turned away and separate himself from the body, the church. And then in a certain way, he had abdicated the pontificate, which no one holds you can hold. If he does not belong to the church.
Speaker 1 00:35:23 One then sees that in the case of heresy, which is the PON. If you adhere to privately, there'd be an immediate efficacious remedy for whatever would be done in order to calm to reason before the declaration of his would constitute an obligation to charity, not have jurisdiction close quote. So there's a lot there. Don't worry if you got it all. Cause now we're going to sum it up in other words, but it was important to read from the actual field load. Let's sum that up. It appears from everything. We've heard that if a pub or publicly proclaimed statements that were in and of themselves heretical, that would not mean that he was a heretic. We've already seen that, but the charity owed to him by all Catholics would call for a correction. If someone's driving off a cliff, if we can't just stand that laugh at him, we have to do what we can.
Speaker 1 00:36:15 And obviously there are people that are in a better position, a much better position to address this issue than others. The Cardinals have a special obligation here as his councilors to offer such a charitable correction in their case, it's actually at the level of a duty. We've seen his own clergy, the clergy of Rome, but Roman citizen might also be obliged in a particular way offering his charitable correction. Obviously the scriptures are clear that the corrections must first be done privately. If that correction were fused, then the situation would call for a formal correction. If that correction should be rejected, then another should be offered. And then heaven forbid if that should be rejected, scripture States plan that we have to quote avoid the heretic after first and second correction, no such man has perverted sin since he's condemned by his own chest. That scripture.
Speaker 1 00:37:09 In other words, those true corrections, formal corrections would have established publicly the obstinacy of the person being corrected. In this case, the pole, they would have publicly establish his obstacles and I'll have one or more of the truth revealed by God and proposed by the church for belief. And so doing, he would have openly and publicly declared himself to be a formal heritage. And that's who has openly, publicly declared that he was no longer the pole any decoration made at this point would serve the purpose of forming the church at large of his hair, seeing subsequent fall of his own abdication of his office.
Speaker 1 00:37:49 This is serious serious business. Dr. Lamont cool. The act of fraternal correction to which prelates are bound in the face of Pope. Francis is heretical statements is not only an act of charity. It also constitutes the warning that it's necessary for before a person can be judged guilty of the canonical crime of heresy. The publication that Derby up is not such an act of warning, but the formal act of correction, Cardinal Burke envisages would be such an act if sexual warning repeated twice and Pope Francis refuse to heat. Both of these warnings who become canonical guilty of heresy, this a serious, some might argue at the Doobie at other criticism, more or less cutesy that had been made already suffice as warnings to Pope Francis and hence that he can not be judged to be guilty of the canonical crime of Harrison, but for the very serious purpose of judging a Pope to be a hair take, they do not suffice the evidence dated for juridical judgment. As such gravity has to take a form that is entirely clear and beyond dispute a formal warning from a number of the members of the colleges of Cardinals that is then disregarded by the Pope would constitute such evidence.
Speaker 1 00:39:19 That's a serious,
Speaker 2 00:39:21 Okay.
Speaker 1 00:39:23 It has to be hoped that the correction of Pope Francis does not have to proceed this far. And then you will either reject the heresies he's announced or resign his office, removing him from office against as well would require the election of a new Pope who would probably put church with Francis is an antique Pope, contesting the authority of a new pole. If Francis refuses either to renounce his heresy or his office, however, the situation will just have to be faced close. Call John Lamont. It's a serious, serious business. We continue with excerpts from two interviews of Cardinal Burke. The first interview, you said you were willing to issue a formal correction if necessary. Does that still stand Cardinal Burke? Of course it does. That's the standard instrument in the church for addressing such a situation. Second year, some people are saying that Paul could separate himself from communion with the church and the public intimately be declared in CISM or Harris, Cardinal Burke. You have the pulpwood Farley profess heresy, who would cease by that act could be the Pope it's automatic. And so that could happen.
Speaker 2 00:40:43 The interview.
Speaker 1 00:40:44 This question about the pulp quitting heresy. What happens then at the Polk commits here at sea? There's no longer pole. Is there a new conclave who's in charge of the church who just don't even go there to start figuring that stuff out. Cardinal Burke, there's already in place the discipline to be followed when the pulp ceases from his office, even as happened. When Pope Benedict the 16th, advocated his office, the church continue to be governed and interim between the effective date is advocation inauguration. The papal ministry of Pope Francis, the interviewer, who is competent to declare to be in heresy Cardinal Burke would have to be members of the college of Cardinals.
Speaker 1 00:41:35 Daniel, just to clarify again, are you saying that Pope Francis is inherit? So you're close to it, Cardinal Berg? No, I'm not saying that Pope Francis isn't heresy. I've never said that. Neither have I stated that he's close to being in hairs, thinner fever, Jesuit, the Holy spirit protect us from such a danger, Cardinal Burke, the Holy spirit inhabits the church. Poly spirit has always watched showering, inspiring. It's tracking the church of members of the church and in a preeminent way, the hierarchy must cooperate with the promptings of the Holy spirit. It's one thing for the Holy spirit to be present with us, but it's another for us to be obedient to the Holy spirit, close quotes is this serious, serious business. We have a lot to pray for. We need to pray and sacrifice the pulp and the Cardinals Len starts this Wednesday, commit yourself to some sort of daily sacrifice and prayer for the pole and the Cardinals, and be very, very careful not to go into CISM yourself, but anger towards the Pope or whatever the case may be preserve a union with him until such time. Heaven forbid, but preserve your union with him until such time. As there been two formal corrections and declaration from the Cardinals. If you go to citizen, even in your heart, you can be saved in that condition.
Speaker 1 00:43:17 A lot of tragedies, a lot of bloggers are going to pass from this life and an attorney into hell unless they preserve that union or repent and return to it. A lot of tracks, a lot of tragedies per serve your union. This is serious, serious business. It has to be hauled the Pope Francis. Now the either rejected Harris theses announced or resign his office, removing him from office against his will, would require the election of a new Pope would probably leave the church with Francis as an antique Pope contesting the authority of the new Pope. If Francis refuses to renounce either heresy or his office, however, the situation will just have to be Pope Francis with.
