ROME, April 5, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis is “increasing the confusion” in the Church, and the College of Cardinals constitutes a de facto check against papal error, Cardinal Raymond Burke has said in a new interview.

Speaking to the Italian Catholic news agency La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana on Thursday, Cardinal Burke said last week’s alleged ‘interview’ on hell with Pope Francis, reported by his 94-year-old atheist friend, Eugenio Scalfari, “went beyond what is tolerable.”

Burke also called the Vatican’s response to the “scandalized reactions” from across the globe “highly inadequate,” because it failed to reassert the Church’s teaching on the immortality of the soul and the existence of hell. He said it also failed to state that Pope Francis repudiates the “erroneous and even heretical ideas” attributed to him.

“It has been a source of profound scandal not only for many Catholics but also for many people in the secular world who have respect for the Catholic Church and its teachings, even if they do not share them,” he said.

“This playing around with faith and doctrine, at the highest level of the Church, rightly leaves pastors and faithful scandalized,” he added.

Cardinal Burke said the situation is further aggravated by the silence of so many bishops and cardinals, some of whom “pretend there is nothing serious going on.”

Here below we publish a LifeSiteNews translation of the full interview with Cardinal Burke. It comes just two days before an April 7 conference in Rome under the title: “Catholic Church: Where are you heading?”

Your Eminence, you will be one of the main speakers at the conference in Rome on April 7, which in the name of Cardinal Caffarra will ask questions about the direction of the Church. The title of the conference indicates concern over the direction being taken in the Church. What are the reasons for this concern?

The confusion and division in the Church on the most fundamental and important issues — marriage and the family, the Sacraments and the right disposition to receive them, intrinsically evil acts, eternal life and the Last Things — are becoming increasingly widespread. And the Pope not only refuses to clarify things by proclaiming the constant doctrine and sound discipline of the Church — a responsibility inherent in his ministry as the Successor of St. Peter, but he is also increasing the confusion.

Are you referring to the increase in the number of private statements that are being reported by those who meet with him?

What happened with the last interview given to Eugenio Scalfari during Holy Week and published on Holy Thursday went beyond what is tolerable. That a well-known atheist claims to announce a revolution in the teaching of the Catholic Church, believing that he speaks on behalf of the Pope, denying the immortality of the human soul and the existence of Hell, has been a source of profound scandal not only for many Catholics but also for many people in the secular world who have respect for the Catholic Church and its teachings, even if they do not share them.

Moreover, Holy Thursday is one of the holiest days of the year, the day on which the Lord instituted the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and the Priesthood, so that He might always offer us the fruit of His redemptive Passion and Death for our eternal salvation. Furthermore, the Holy See’s response to the scandalized reactions from all over the world was highly inadequate. Instead of clearly reasserting the truth about the immortality of the human soul and Hell, the denial only states that some of the words quoted are not the Pope’s. It does not say that the erroneous and even heretical ideas expressed by these words are not shared by the Pope, and that the Pope repudiates these ideas as contrary to the Catholic Faith. This playing around with the faith and doctrine, at the highest level of the Church, rightly leaves pastors and faithful scandalized.

If things are so serious, and a source of embarrassment, it is astonishing that so many of the Church’s pastors remain silent.

Certainly, the situation is further aggravated by the silence of so many bishops and cardinals who share with the Roman Pontiff a sollicitude for the universal Church. Some  simply stay silent. Others pretend that there is nothing serious going on. Still others spread fantasies of a new Church, of a Church that takes a totally different direction from the past, imagining for example a “new paradigm” for the Church, or a radical conversion in the Church’s pastoral praxis, making it completely new. Then there are those who are enthusiastic promoters of the so-called revolution in the Catholic Church. For the faithful who understand the gravity of the situation, the lack of doctrinal and disciplinary direction on the part of their pastors leaves them feeling lost. For the faithful who do not understand the gravity of the situation, this lack of direction leaves them in confusion, and eventually victims of errors that endanger their souls. Many people who were baptized in a Protestant ecclesial communion, but then entered into the full communion of the Catholic Church because their original ecclesial communities abandoned the Apostolic Faith, are suffering intensely at this situation — they perceive that the Catholic Church is going down the same road of abandoning the faith.

What you are describing is an apocalyptic situation…

This whole situation leads me to reflect more and more on the message of Our Lady of Fatima who warns us about the evil — even more serious than the very grave evils suffered because of the spread of atheistic communism — which is apostasy from the faith within the Church. Number 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Churchteaches us that “before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers” and that “the persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.”

In such a situation the bishops and cardinals have the duty to proclaim true doctrine. At the same time, they must lead the faithful to make reparation for the offenses against Christ and the wounds inflicted on His Mystical Body, the Church, when faith and discipline are not rightly safeguarded and promoted by pastors. The great canonist of the thirteenth century, Henry of Segusio, also known as Hostiensis, facing the difficult question of how to correct a Roman Pontiff who acts in a way contrary to his office, states that the College of Cardinals constitutes a de facto check against papal error.

Without a doubt, the figure of Pope Francis is much discussed today. The discussion ranges from the uncritical exaltation of whatever he does to the ruthless criticism for every ambiguous gesture. But somehow the problem of how to relate to the Pope applies to every pontiff. And so some things need to be clarified. What does the Pope represent for the Church?

According to the constant teaching of the Church, the Pope, through the express will of Christ, is “the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second  Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 23). It is the essential service of the Pope to safeguard and promote the deposit of faith, true doctrine and sound discipline consistent with the truths believed.

In the interview with Eugenio Scalfari quoted above, the Pope is referred to as “revolutionary.” But the Petrine Office has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with revolution. On the contrary, it exists exclusively for the preservation and propagation of the immutable Catholic faith, which leads souls to conversion of heart and leads all humanity to the unity founded on the order inscribed by God in His creation and especially in the heart of man, the only earthly creature made in the image of God. It is the order that Christ restored through the Paschal Mystery that we are celebrating in these [Easter] days. The grace of the Redemption that emanates from His glorious pierced Heart in the Church, in the hearts of His members, gives the strength to live according to this order, that is, in communion with God and with one’s neighbor.

Surely the Pope is not an absolute sovereign, yet today he is widely seen as such. “If the Pope says so….” is the common way of cutting off any question or doubt about various statements. There is a sort of papolatry. How would you respond to this?

The notion of the plenitude of power of the Roman Pontiff has already been enunciated clearly by Pope St. Leo the Great. The Canonists of the Middle Ages contributed greatly to the deepening of the power inherent in the Petrine Office. Their contribution remains valid and important. The notion is very simple. The Pope, through the divine will, enjoys all the power necessary to safeguard and promote the true faith, true divine worship, and the sound discipline required.

This power belongs not to his person but to his office as Successor of St. Peter. In the past, for the most part, the popes did not make public their personal acts or their opinions precisely so as not to risk the faithful being confused about what the successor of St.Peter does and thinks. At present there is a risky and even harmful confusion between the person of the Pope and his office, that results in the obscuring of the Petrine Office and in a worldly and political idea of the service of the Roman Pontiff in the Church.

The Church exists for the salvation of souls. Any act of a Pope that undermines the salvific mission of Christ in the Church, whether it be a heretical act or a sinful act in itself, is simply void from the point of view of the Petrine Office. Therefore, even if it clearly causes very serious damage to souls, it does not command the obedience of pastors and faithful. We must always distinguish the body of the man who is the Roman Pontiff from the body of the Roman Pontiff, that is, from the man who exercises the office of St. Peter in the Church. Not to make this distinction means papolatry and ends up in the loss of faith in the Divinely Founded and Sustained Petrine Office.

What should a Catholic hold most dear in his relationship with the Pope?

A Catholic must always respect, in an absolute way, the Petrine Office as an essential part of the institution of the Church by Christ. When a Catholic no longer respects the office of the Pope, he is disposed either to schism or to an apostasy from the Faith. At the same time, Catholics must respect the man charged with the office, which means attention to his teaching and pastoral direction.

This respect also includes the duty to express the judgment of a rightly formed conscience to the Pope, when he deviates or seems to deviate from true doctrine and sound discipline, or to abandon the responsibilities inherent in his office. Through natural law, the Gospels, and the Church’s constant disciplinary tradition, the faithful are bound to express to their pastors their concern for the state of the Church. They have this duty, which is matched by the right to receive a response from their pastors.

And so is it possible to criticize the Pope? And under what conditions?

If the Pope does not fulfill his office for the good of all souls, it is not only possible but also necessary to criticize the Pope. This criticism ought to follow Christ’s teaching on fraternal correction in the Gospel (Mt 18:15-18). First, the lay faithful or pastor ought to express his criticism privately, which will allow the Pope to correct himself. But if the Pope refuses to correct a way of teaching or acting that is gravely lacking, the criticism ought to be made public, because it has to do with the common good in the Church and in the world. Some have criticized those who have publicly expressed criticism of the Pope, saying it is a manifestation of rebellion or disobedience, but to ask — with due respect for his office — for the correction of confusion or error is not an act of disobedience, but an act of obedience to Christ and thus to His Vicar on earth.

Translation by Diane Montagna. Reprinted with the kind permission of Riccardo Cascioli of La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. 

ROME, April 7, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — The history of the Church teaches us that “truth is not necessarily found with the majority,” but rather in the “minority which has truly lived and witnessed to the faith,” Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the four ‘dubia’ cardinal, said today in Rome.

Speaking at the symposium ‘Catholic Church: Where are you heading?,’ Cardinal Brandmüller said “when Catholics en masse consider it legitimate to remarry after divorce or use contraception … this is not a mass witness to the faith, but a mass departure from it.”

In his reflection, Brandmüller, president emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, Blessed John Henry Newman’s 1859 essay On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine.  emphasized the laity’s role in matters of doctrine, and sought to distinguish what is a true sensus fidei (sense of the faith) of believers and what is not.

“In the history of the people of God, it has often been not the majority but rather a minority which has truly lived and witnessed to the faith,” he said. “The experience of the Church shows that sometimes the truth of the faith has been conserved not by the efforts of theologians or the teaching of the majority of bishops but in the hearts of believers.”

The sensus fidei fidelium, Brandmüller continued, is expressed much more authentically initiatives like the “Manif pour tous” mass demonstrations in France, the one million faithful who petitioned Pope Francis to clarify the confusion that arose after the publication of Amoris Laetitia, the March for Life in the United States, and the human Rosary chain in Poland and other places around the world.

“It is time that the Magisterium paid due attention to this witness of faith,” he said.

Here below we offer our readers an English translation of Cardinal Walter Brandmüller’s talk in Rome.

On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller

April 7, 2018 – Rome

On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine. This is the title of the famous essay written by Blessed John Henry Newman in 1859 that I will be commenting on today. I will consider what space and weight ought to be given to the voice of the faithful in matters of doctrine. And I will pose this question amid the crisis of faith that today is shaking the Church to its depths.

When speaking of the laity, some might suppose that we intend to contrast experts with “laity,” where the latter are less “afflicted” by informed consent and more easily make their voices heard even in the most complex issues. Just think of the problem of climate change. But that is not what we are dealing with here and now.

In the present context, “layman” does not designate a non-expert in matters of theology, but rather a baptized and confirmed Christian who has not received the sacrament of Orders. I will therefore examine what role the laity have in the interpretation, explanation, proclamation and formulation of the doctrine of the faith; and, not lastly, I will pose this question against the background of the current situation. The International Theological Commission, then headed by Cardinal Müller, in 2014 also published an important document in this regard, which will be taken into consideration.

I

First, however, let us take a look at history. There are, in fact, many testimonies of the important role of the laity’s witness of faith. Cardinal Newman turns our gaze to the Arian crisis in the fourth century. In that situation, which dealt with the equal nature of the divinity of Jesus with the Father, and whose stakes were a matter of belonging or not belonging to the Church, the bishops failed in abundance. “They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicaea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years.”

While the episcopate was shaken and divided, “in that very day the divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the Episcopate.” Newman states: “In that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the ‘Ecclesia docta’ than by the ‘Ecclesia docens’; that the body of the episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism.”

Let us skip over the analogous testimonies in the Middle Ages and at the beginning of the modern era, where preference is given to the witness of faith of the whole Church, without distinguishing between titles of holders of the magisterium and the faithful. There one finds the infallibilitas in credendo spoken of, i.e. the passive infallibility of the Church, which cannot, in its totality, fall into heresy.

The sensus fidei of believers, however, does not act only when dealing with the rejecting error, but also in the witness to truth.

Very significant examples of the importance that  several popes attributed to the laity’s witness of faith can be found in the last two centuries; more precisely, in the context of the Marian dogmas of 1854 and 1950.

In both cases, before they were defined all the bishops were invited to verify and report where they themselves, together with the clergy and the faithful, stood in regard to this intention. In this way, both Pius IX and Pius XII ascertained the conviction of faith alive in the Church regarding the two Marian truths. The approval of the two dogmas was general, with a few rare exceptions. “Securus iudicat orbis terrarum.” Augustine had already contrasted this conviction with the heresies of his time. Clearly both Pius IX and Pius XII were aware of the weight that the witness of the faithful has also in relation to the supreme master of faith, making express reference to it in their respective bulls defining the dogmas.

II

It is therefore the sensus, the consensus fidei, by virtue of which the witness of the faithful has its own weight in the preservation, deepening and proclamation of the truth of revealed faith.

When Cardinal Newman says that it is a matter, on the part of the Magisterium, of consulting the faithful, one might get the impression that he intends a sort of poll, even a plebiscite. Of course this is impossible. The Church is not a democratically constituted society, but the Corpus mysticum of the risen and glorified Christ, with whom and in whom the faithful are united as the members of a body, forming as it were a supernatural organism. Clearly, therefore, laws different from sociological and political ones apply; what emerges here is the reality of grace.

As the faith teaches, through the Sacrament of baptism a person is infused with sanctifying grace, which is a supernatural ontological reality that renders man holy, just and pleasing to God. Through sanctifying grace — one could also say justifying grace — the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity are also infused. Faith, hope and charity are a habitus, a predisposition of the soul that make the latter capable of acting, of behaving accordingly.

One way the theological virtue of faith becomes efficacious, among other things, is through the sensus fidei of the faithful. This effectiveness can, positively, enable a deeper vision of revealed truth, a clearer understanding and a stronger profession. Negatively, however, the sensus fidei acts as a sort of spiritual immune system, which enables the faithful instinctively to recognize and reject any error. Leaving aside the divine promise, the passive infallibility of the Church, i.e. the certainty that the Church in its totality can never slip into heresy, also rests therefore on this sensus fidei.

In fact, in number 12 of the constitution Lumen gentium, the Second Vatican Council teaches: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. 1 Jn 2:20 and 27), cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when ‘from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful’ they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. […] Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints, penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.”

Therefore, the consensus of the faithful and manifestation of the same have a significant importance.

III

Now, undoubtedly in the history of the Church there have been cases of this kind. Such was the case, for example, with the so-called Pataria movement in Northern Italy, which, approaching attempts at roman reform, in the second half of the twelfth century forcefully rose up against the investiture of the laity, simony and priestly concubinage. Then there were the masses of faithful who in 1300s set out to reach the tombs of the apostles, leading Pope Boniface VIII to establish the Holy Year and to articulate the doctrine on indulgences with the Bull Antiquorum habet fida relatio. It should not be forgotten how important the ultramontanism of the nineteenth century was for the dogmas of Vatican Council I.

But history also teaches us that truth is not necessarily found with the majority, or in large numbers. Indeed, what should have be said when, for example, the apostolic nuncio Girolamo Aleandro reported from the Reichstag of Worms of 1521 that nine tenths of the Germans had shouted “Luther” and “down with the Roman Curia”? What should be said when today our parish communities loudly applaud a priest who has announced his imminent wedding during his homily? What happened when the German Katholikentag of 1968 reacted with excessive protests, even with hatred, to the encyclical Humanae vitae?

Truly, in such cases was — and is — the sensus fidei, the consensus fidelium at work, nourished by the theological virtue? It seems clear, in these and other similar cases, that the consensus fidei fidelium cannot be compared to the volonté generale of Rousseau.

Therefore, when Catholics en masse consider it legitimate to remarry after divorce, to use contraception or other similar things, this is not a mass witness to the faith, but a mass departure from it. The sensus fidei is not an entity that can be determined democratically,  through opinion polls. The only question is how mass testimony differs from mass estrangement.

St. John Paul II therefore had already stressed the need to distinguish carefully between “public opinion” and the sensus fidei fidelium.

In this regard, the International Theological Commission also says with great clarity: “It is clear that there can be no simple identification between the sensus fidei and public or majority opinion. These are by no means the same thing.” (The sensus fidei in the life of the Church, n. 118). This also applies to public or majority opinion within the Church. “In the history of the people of God, it has often been not the majority but rather a minority which has truly lived and witnessed to the faith. […]. It is therefore particularly important to discern and listen to the voices of the ‘little ones who believe’ (Mk 9:42)” (ibid.).

What follows [in the text] is extraordinary: “The experience of the Church shows that sometimes the truth of the faith has been conserved not by the efforts of theologians or the teaching of the majority of bishops but in the hearts of believers” (ibid. n. 119).

One particular example of this is given by the arian confusion surrounding the Council of Nicaea already mentioned by Newman, where even the synods of bishops either supported heresy or were spreading it. The same could be observed when one thinks of the opinions sustained today by the diocesan, pastoral and other councils established in the post-conciliar period. It is perhaps a little far from reality when the above-mentioned document “Sensus fidei” defines them in general as “institutional instruments” for evaluating the sensus fidelium (ibid., n. 125).

Indeed, as the example of the post-Nicaea synods already shows, they can fall into error. Discernment therefore becomes even more essential. This need is highlighted by the document ‘The sensus fidei in the life of the Church published’ published in 2014: “It is necessary now to consider how to discern and identify authentic manifestations of the sensus fidei. Such a discernment is particularly required in situations of tension when the authentic sensus fidei needs to be distinguished from expressions simply of popular opinion, particular interests or the spirit of the age” (n. 87).

Once again, reference can be made to J. H. Newman, who in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine proposes a list of criteria which make it possible to distinguish the legitimate organic development of doctrine from error. Here it suffices to recall the indispensable lack of contradiction with regard to authentic tradition.

And so this document [The sensus fidei in the life of the Church published] also develops criteria, or “dispositions required for authentic participation in the sensus fidei” (ibid., n. 73). This means that not all those who call themselves Catholic can claim they should be taken seriously as a organ of this sensus fidei.

In short: “Authentic participation in the sensus fidei requires holiness. […] To be holy fundamentally means […] to be baptized and to live the faith in the power of the Holy Spirit.” (ibid. n. 99). This defines a very high requirement then.

*

Once these premises have been laid down, it is necessary to take into account what the Second Vatican Council teaches in number 12 of Lumen Gentium: “Catholics should be fully aware of the real freedom to speak their minds which stems from a “feeling for the faith” [i.e. the sensus fidei] and from love (Lumen gentium, 12). (The sensus fidei in the life of the Church, n. 24). That is why canon 212 §3 also establishes: “According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals.”

*

Now, however, the question arises as to how to discern the authentic, and therefore theologically relevant, sensus fidelium. In the preparatory phase of the synods of bishops, for example, questionnaires were distributed for this purpose. I cannot judge to what extent these actions were carried out in a professional manner, that is, taking into account the methods developed by modern public opinion research. It is clear, however, that these questionnaires reached the halls of Catholic organizations much more easily than the normal community of the faithful. It was therefore to be expected that the results of the consultation would be influenced by the thinking promoted by the individual associations, etc., rather than reflecting the true public opinion of the people of the faithful. Another problem is the choice, that is to say the formulation of the proposed questions. This made it easy to manipulate the results. It is doubtful whether this [method] will allow the real sensus fidei fidelium to be experienced.

The sensus fidei fidelium, I believe, is expressed much more authentically through spontaneous declarations. One very clear example of this is offered by the “Manif pour tous” mass demonstrations in France. It is also worth noting the participation of hundreds of thousands of people in the Marches for Life. Almost one million Catholics have petitioned the Holy Father about the issues that arose over Amoris laetitia, followed by more than 200 eminent scholars from all over the world. And there are human chains praying the Rosary around the world. These are the forms in which the sensus fidei, the instinct of faith of believing people, is manifested today. It is time that the Magisterium paid due attention to this witness of faith.

In the work cited at the beginning of this talk, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, J. H. Newman writes: “…I am not supposing that such times as the Arian will ever come again…”. Today we would all be better off if he were right.

Translation by Diane Montagna of LifeSiteNews (All rights reserved).