Interview in German Newspaper
“Cardinal” Brandmuller warns of Schism:
“May God prevent it”
[UPDATE 29-OCT-2017: Full Interview Text now available in English here]
The Oct. 28, 2017 edition of the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine contains a full-page interview with “Cardinal” Walter Brandmuller, one of the only two surviving Novus Ordo cardinals who petitioned Francis to answer five specific questions or doubts (“dubia“) regarding the teaching of his exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Fr. Brandmuller’s responses throughout the interview are refreshingly clear and firm, especially for Novus Ordo standards.
To review, the five now world-famous Dubia are the following:
1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person “more uxorio” (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by “Familiaris Consortio” n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia” n. 34 and “Sacramentum Caritatis” n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live “more uxorio”?
2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
3. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)?
4. After the affirmations of “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
5. After “Amoris Laetitia” (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
(“Cardinals” Walter Brandmuller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Joachim Meisner, Letter to “Pope” Francis, Sep. 19, 2016; in Sandro Magister, “‘Seeking Clarity.’ The Appeal of Four Cardinals To the Pope”, Chiesa, Nov. 14, 2016)
These fives questions were sent to Francis on Sep. 19, 2016. To this day, he has refused to answer them, and we all know why: He cannot win. If he answers them in accordance with what he is really thinking (as expressed here), he is condemning himself. If he answers them in accordance with traditional Catholic teaching, then he is condemning Amoris Laetitia. Either way, Francis loses. The problem for him is that the questions are very direct and very clear, when he prefers to inject his heretical poison into souls indirectly and with loads of ambiguity.
In the interview published today by Frankfurter Allgemeine, Fr. Brandmuller reiterates the legitimacy of the Dubia and the importance of receiving an answer. While the entire interview is worth a read, the most explosive part comes at the end:
[Interviewer:] Which of the doubts formulated in your “Dubia” letter is the principal one? How would you try to explain it once more, succinctly, to a layman?
[“Cardinal” Brandmuller:] First: To pose “dubia”, i.e. doubts, questions to the Pope has always been a way of eliminating ambiguities. That’s completely normal. Then: Put simply, the question is: Can something be permitted today that was a sin yesterday? It is also asked if, as has always been taught, there really are actions that are immoral at all times and under any circumstance? Such as, for example, the killing of an innocent man, or adultery? That’s what the issue ultimately is. Should, then, the first question indeed be answered with “yes” and the second with “no” — then this would be heresy [Irrlehre, “doctrinal error”] and subsequently [mean] schism. A split in the Church.
Do you really consider schism a possibility?
May God prevent it.
(“Das Christentum hechelt nicht nach Applaus”, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Oct. 28, 2017; our translation.)
Notice that “Cardinal” Brandmuller brings up schism entirely on his own initiative. The interviewer did not “bait” him to speak about a split in the church. In fact, the questioner seems somewhat incredulous at Brandmuller’s comment and therefore asks if he considers schism a genuine possibility. Brandmuller does not say “yes” or “no”; he gives a response that deliberately avoids a direct answer: “May God prevent it.”
Since the first Synod on the Family in 2014, we’ve been asking, “How long until schism?” in the Vatian II Sect.
Apparently even Novus Ordo cardinals are now asking themselves the same question.
Image source: youtube.com (screenshot)
License: fair use
Schism presumes there is a valid Pope. No valid Pope, no schism it’s that simple. Conclusion Walter Bandmuller presumes that Francis is a valid Pope otherwise he wouldn’t make that comment. So my question to him would be, didn’t Jesus teach that a valid Pope cannot teach heresy? Doesn’t basic logic dictate that if Francis is a valid Pope and a valid Pope cannot teach heresy therefore if Francis is a valid Pope therefore his teaching is not heretical? If Brandmuller has an issue with the teaching of Francis then he should have an issue with the teaching of Jesus Christ regarding the papacy. This is a simply a matter of modernists disagreeing with modernists. Schism is a rejection of the papacy, not a rejection of the ‘pope’ per se. if I understand this correctly. I reject Francis as Pope, not the papacy. I reject Francis because I cannot see how a true Pope can think, teach and practice modernism, it contradicts what Jesus taught regarding Peter.
My original issue with sedevacantism was that it was not possible for me to decide whether the man on the chair of St. Peter was a true Pope or not. Now I am asking, does the Catholic Church teach dogmatically that the man on the chair of St. Peter has to be a valid Pope? There have been times in history where there have been multiple claimants to the chair of St. Peter. The situation today is that we have a retired ‘Pope’ (Ratzinger) and a man on the chair of St. Peter (Bergoglio) who claims to be Pope, both men being modernists. How is a mere lay person supposed to figure this out? All the Cardinals and bishops and priests and lay people of the Novus Ordo Religion support this situation knowingly or not.
A man must first be a Catholic to be eligible to become pope. He must remain a Catholic once he has ascended to the Chair of St. Peter to remain the Pope.
How do we know if someone is a Catholic? Because the Church is visible, those who are regarded as members must have visible traits.
Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis that the visible traits by which we recognise a Catholic are: Baptism, Profession of the true Faith, being subject to the legitimate pastors of the Church, and not be under any decree of excommunication.
It’s not hard. The hard part is accepting that we are in an apostasy which is in such an unprecedented scale of magnitude that there has never been any time like this in history to compare it to.
Identifying a fellow member of the Church is so simple, anyone can apply her teaching in particular instances.
If we needed to wait for the Church to make a declaration every time someone became a public heretic, as Salza and Siscoe insist, then we could never be sure that it was the Church declaring anything without ending up in a circular argument from which there is no way out.
The general discipline of the Church is infallible, as is the liturgy of the Church. The canonization of saints is infallible. One can reference Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi by G Van Noort (1932). Therefore one can be CERTAIN that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant, because the general discipline of the Novus Ordo is evil, the Novus Ordo Liturgy is evil, the Novus Ordo Canon Law is evil, and the Novus Ordo saints are evil (e.g. “Saints” Angelo Roncalli, Karol Wojtyla, and Mother Theresa of Calcutta).
We are now living in the revolt or apostasia in St. Paul’s Greek (II Thessalonians 2: 3). The fact that the modernists and liberals have managed to usurp the positions of power in the Catholic Church and virtually destroy Her, should not cause one to deny what the Catholic Church has always taught and practiced. The only way to explain all of this, and still preserve the Catholic Religion is by sedevacantism. The enemies of the Church took over the positions of power, ultimately usurping the papacy in 1958. They have been in control of those positions since.
The R&R position(s) all contain some denial of the traditional faith.
We have had anti-popes in the past. We have had long interregnums.
What are you worried about, Your Eminence? As the First Vatican Council clearly teaches:
“This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell. [emphasis mine]”
What, that doesn’t sound just like Francis? No? Ok, you have a choice then: You can either deny the teaching of Vatican I, or you can deny that Francis is a successor of Peter. Which is it going to be?
Just consider this my dubium to you.
I wonder if all these Novus Ordite clerics would even think of schism if they did not have the bogus Rat Emeritus to fall back on. I don’t think they have the spine for it. In any case, if the slightly more conservative Novus Ordite clerics were to split from Jorge and start their own church, it will not be Catholic. They love the changes of Vatican II, and they love calling John Paul II a saint. The new schismatic church will be a moderate version of the Novus Ordo, with the exception that they will not allow divorced and remarried to receive communion. I don’t think they have a beef with any of the rest of the Novus Ordo Church.
The idiotic pope emeritus novelty is actually working against them. They are a comedy of errors.
Brandmuller’s answer “May God prevent it” is the diplomatic way of saying “Yes, but I don’t want to admit it publicly.”