Are the Dubia Cardinal's committing the Great Apostasy in contradicting Church teachings on the Mercy of God?

Are the Dubia Cardinal's committing the Great Apostasy in contradicting Church teachings on the Mercy of God?

Apostasy in Christianity is the rejection of Christianity by someone who formerly was a Christian. The term apostasy comes from the Greek word apostasia ("ἀποστασία") meaning defection, departure, revolt or rebellion. It has been described as "a willful falling away from, or rebellion against, Christianity. Apostasy is the rejection of Christ by one who has been a Christian...." "Apostasy is a theological category describing those who have voluntarily and consciously abandoned their faith in the God of the covenant, who manifests himself most completely in Jesus Christ." "Apostasy is the antonym of conversion; it is deconversion." - Apostasy in Christianity (Wikipedia)

Take note, the apostasy speaks about a former Christian,perhaps a laity or clergy. They previously belong to the Church but separated themselves. A scripture passage on St.John affirmed this but pertains more on the Bishops or Cardinals.

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

This scripture passages speaks about a Bishops or Cardinals committing schism. Are the Dubia Cardinals in schism with Pope Francis? Yes.

When I read the much-discussed dubia of the four Cardinals, I was astonished to find that they were accusing Pope Francis of ignoring or contradicting the teaching of Veritatis Splendor on intrinsically evil acts. For that is one of my main criticisms of the conservative Catholic subculture, that the teaching of Veritatis Splendor on intrinsic evil is ignored or radically reinterpreted. The hypocrisy is stunning. See my post: Are You Waiting on a Response to the Dubia? https://ronconte.com/2017/07/15/do-you-realize-that-the-conservative-schism-has-begun/

https://ronconte.com/2017/01/12/are-you-waiting-on-a-response-to-the-dubia/

AMORIS LAETETIA

In the height of the confusions on the Amoris Laetetia, we can see that Pope Francis are calling all the clergy & prelates and all the faithful to seek conversion, why?

A converted heart is docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit, while the "rigid" souls is oppose to the Holy Spirit inspirations.

In an address to bishops in Madagascar, Pope Francis warns his audience not to let the fear of not enough priests justify them being undiscerning in priestly formation and accept men into the priesthood who aren’t striving for holiness. He says, “I appreciate your efforts to ensure the formation of authentic and holy workers for the abundant harvest that awaits us in the field of the Lord.”

Then the pope goes on to warn against a particular attitude that he sees as a problem for priests:

“Furthermore, I would like to emphasize an attitude that I do not like, because it does not come from God: rigidity. Today it is fashionable, I do not know about here, but in other parts of the world it is fashionable, to find rigid people. Young, rigid priests, who want to save with rigidity, perhaps, I don’t know, but they take this attitude of rigidity and sometimes – excuse me – from the museum. They are afraid of everything, they are rigid. Be careful, and know that under any rigidity there are serious problems.”

This made me ask: “What does he mean by ‘rigid’?”

So I looked in Pope Francis’ document on holiness to see if he speaks about rigidity there, and he does.

The pope understands rigidity as an attitude that’s opposed to the movement of the Holy Spirit.

In this document, when talking about discernment of spirits, he says:

“[Discernment] is all the more important when some novelty presents itself in our lives. Then we have to decide whether it is new wine brought by God or an illusion created by the spirit of this world or the spirit of the devil. At other times, the opposite can happen, when the forces of evil induce us not to change, to leave things as they are, to opt for a rigid resistance to change. Yet that would be to block the working of the Spirit.”

And:

“The discernment of spirits liberates us from rigidity, which has no place before the perennial “today” of the risen Lord. The Spirit alone can penetrate what is obscure and hidden in every situation, and grasp its every nuance, so that the newness of the Gospel can emerge in another light.” https://wherepeteris.com/what-did-pope-francis-say-about-rigid-priests/

Amoris Laetetia needs Pastoral Accompaniment and Discernment, a "rigid" priest or Bishop not docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit cannot help the couple in irregular union seeking the help of the Church in their difficult situation.

The Dubia Cardinals upheld the teachings of the Church, and said the Church cannot help those souls in irregular situation. The Dubia Cardinals close the Door of Mercy on them.

Pope Francis on the other hand, implore the Infinite Mercy of God saying "the Church cannot condemns forever and had an obligation to help all the lost and wounded souls." The Church mission is salvation of souls not condemnation. The Church must upheld the "primacy of mercy over justice".

James 2:13 New International Version (NIV) 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

So, in Amoris Laetetia the Dubia Cardinals closes the Door of Mercy and refuse to assent to the Faith of the Church written in the approved Magisterial Teachings of Pope Francis in Amoris Laetetia.

POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION AMORIS LÆTITIA OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS TO BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS CONSECRATED PERSONS CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL ON LOVE IN THE FAMILY https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf

CCC2267 (Changes in the Death Penalty Teachings)

Once again, the Dubia Cardinals was seen favoring the "Death Penalty" be implemented as part of the 2000 years Church Traditions refusing to assent to the Faith of the Church in the changes made by Pope Francis which the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith sees no contradiction.

Pope Francis on the other hand said, "that man even if he committed a grievious or heinous crimes does not lost his dignity". Pope Francis implore again the Infinite Mercy of God, saying "No one is beyond redemption". But the Dubia Cardinals sees the executing the "death penalty" was just and in accordance with the Church Traditions and Teachings.

The Dubia Cardinals once again had shown their open opposition to an approved Magisterial Teachings. Even Cardinal Burke was caught, in persuading and influencing his listener to ignore the changes in CCC2267 saying it is just an opinion, neglecting the Prefect of CDF affirmation and approval.

NEW REVISION OF NUMBER 2267 OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE DEATH PENALTY http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180801_catechismo-penadimorte_en.html

Let's go back to the definition of "apostasy", Canon751 defined it this way;

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith.What is the meaning of the word "repudiate"?

To repudiate something is to reject it, or to refuse to accept or support it. If you grow up religious, but repudiate all organized religion as an adult, you might start spending holidays at the movies, or just going to work.

This verb usually refers to rejecting something that has authority, such as a legal contract, doctrine, or claim. In connection with debts or other obligations, repudiate is used in the specialized sense "to refuse to recognize or pay." If referring to a child or a lover, repudiate is used in the sense "to disown, cast off." This verb is derived from Latin repudiare "to put away, divorce."

We can see the following statement that pertains to apostasy is to reject and refuse an approved Church Doctrines.

Is Amoris Laetetia and CCC2267 an approved Church Doctrines or an approved Magisterial Teachings? Yes!.

Are the Dubia Cardinals rejecting and refusing Amoris Laetetia and CCC2267, thereby committing apostasy? Yes, where is the proof. Read this article and click on the interview link on Cardinal Burke.

Cardinal Burke: “This is an opinion of Pope Francis as a man” BY MIKE LEWIS · PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 3, 2019. UPDATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2019.

Can the open,continuous and willful refusal and rejection of the Dubia Cardinals be considered the Great Apostasy of our times?

1. St. John description of the false prophets and Antichrist will come from the Church, meaning this are Bishops and Cardinals who willfully separate themselves from the Church and had committed schism. (1John 2:18-19)

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." (1John2:18-19)

2. The Antichrist will deny Jesus as the Christ.

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1John2:22)

Jesus is the Divine Mercy made flesh, and when one denies the Mercy of God to a couple in irregular union seeking the help of the Church to obtain the Mercy of God, plus when one denies the Mercy of God on the convicted criminals sentenced to death penalty, he denies the role of Jesus as the Christ.

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2John1:7)

The Dubia Cardinals are denying the Mercy of God in refusing and expressing contradiction on Amoris Laetetia and the changes in CCC2267. As Pope Francis said "No one is beyond redemption".

When we deny the Mercy of God to all the lost and wounded souls we contradicted the Will of the Father as He desire that all men be saved.

"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (1Timothy2:3-4)

To know more about if the Antichris, the seducers, or the false prophets is a separated Bishops who committed schism with the Pope. Read this link; How can one identify the Anti-Christ, can he be a Bishop opposing the Papacy in relation to 1 John 2:19-20? How can one identify the Anti-Christ, can he be a Bishop opposing the Papacy in relation to 1 John 2:19-20?

Are the Dubia Cardinal's committing the Great Apostasy in contradicting Church teachings on the Mercy of God?

Impossible to say because the prophecy of The Great Apostasy has not run its course and as such this question is speculative and opinion based. But it is highly doubtful. And that is a dubium!

Apostasy can be defined as such:

Definition

The total rejection by a baptized person of the Christian faith he once professed.

If a dubium is simply a request asking for clarity on this issue. Why can not His Holiness be humble enough to respond to their request? The consciences of these cardinals genuinely want moral certainty in this matter.

Nevertheless, the Dubia Cardinals are not publicly opposing and contradicting the approved Magisterial Teaching of Pope Francis like the Amoris Laetetia, but are asking for clarity on several areas of the document. To my knowledge, Pope Francis is the only Sovereign Pontiff to have refused to respond to a dubium for clarification.

A dubium being a valid request for clarity is a far cry from a declaration of dissension, contradiction or opposition as is insinuated in the above question.

In posing a dubium towards Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia, the dubia cardinals were simply asking for clarity on 5 points in this document.

It should be remembered that St. Paul rebuked publicly St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles:

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (NIV, Galatians 2:11)

There were not alone in asking for clarity.

Early reactions and request for clarification

On June 29, 2016, forty-five Catholics presented a letter to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, in which they claimed to find 12 heretical propositions and 8 propositions falling under lesser theological censures.

Also in June 2016, Carlos José Errázuriz Mackenna, professor of canon law at Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, wrote that Amoris laetitia invited the Catholic Church to deepen its understanding of the demands of justice in the context of the marital bond, understanding them as positive affirmations rather than merely negative limits.

In August 2016, Father Salvador Pie-Ninot, a professor of ecclesiology, wrote that Amoris laetitia is an example of the "ordinary magisterium," papal teaching to which Catholics are obliged to give "religious submission of will and intellect."

Dubia

In September 2016, four cardinals (Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller, Joachim Meisner) asked Pope Francis in a private letter for clarifications regarding Chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia. The letter contained five questions (dubia), and requested a yes or no answer. The cardinals publicized their letter in November 2016 after not receiving a response from Pope Francis. Their questions focus on "whether there are now circumstances under which divorced and remarried persons can receive communion, whether there are still 'absolute moral norms' that prohibit Catholics from taking certain acts, and how the pope understands Catholic teaching on the role of conscience in making moral decisions."

Some Catholic scholars, including German philosopher Robert Spaemann and British academic Joseph Shaw, have expressed support for their initiative. Cardinal George Pell, Prefect of the Vatican Secretariat for the Economy, asked: "How can you disagree with a question?" In December 2016, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, while declaring that it was not the role of the Congregation to engage in the controversy, indicated that he does not believe that the doctrine on communion can change.

Oxford philosopher John Finnis and theologian Germain Grisez also expressed their concern in a detailed letter, requesting the pope to condemn eight positions against the Catholic faith "that are being supported, or likely will be, by the misuse" of Amoris laetitia.

However, according to close Pope Francis adviser, Antonio Spadaro, the controversial questions on communion were already answered. Archbishop of Brisbane Mark Coleridge said that prelates supporting the dubia are pursuing a "false clarity that comes because you don't address reality". In line with this view, it has been suggested that Pope Francis declined to answer the dubia because he wants to emphasize a more humane, pastoral approach and de-emphasize the demand for legal clarity.

Cardinal Caffarra said that after Amoris laetitia "only a blind man could deny there’s great confusion, uncertainty and insecurity in the Church."

In a private letter hand-delivered on 6 May 2017 to Pope Francis, Carlo Caffarra, on behalf of the four cardinals, asked for a papal audience. Caffarra stated that "interpretations of some objectively ambiguous passages" of Amoris laetitia have been given that are "not divergent from, but contrary to, the permanent Magisterium of the Church". In June, having not yet received a response from Pope Francis, the cardinals made the letter public. - Amoris laetitia (Wikipedia)

For the sake clarity I wish to present the five dubia of the four cardinals.

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (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 without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio ["in a marital way"]?

2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 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 (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 (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (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, 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 (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 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? - Full Text and Explanatory Notes of Cardinals’ Questions on ‘Amoris Laetitia’

We should also be aware of what exactly is a dubium!

Note the casual use here of that technical term, dubium. The root Latin meaning is “doubt” (hence “dubious”), but in this context a better translation is probably simply “query” or “request for clarification”. In any case, as this example demonstrates, the submission of dubia to Rome is, in and of itself, a perfectly run-of-the-mill Church affair.

Such dubia can, and are, submitted by bishops (or groups of bishops, as above) on all sorts of topics. After all, Church doctrine and canonical legislation can be complicated to navigate. Quite what the specific wording of a phrase does or does not mean, or quite how it ought most faithfully be applied in certain “grey area” cases, are not always immediately transparent. In such cases, rather than wing it, clarification may be sought with a short, to-the-point (in some cases, “yes” or “no”) inquiry, directed to the competent office. - Submitting dubia is a standard part of Church life. It’s not unreasonable to expect a clear answer

With all stated above, one can not equate the dubia of the four cardinals with dissent or apostasy, when all they ask for was clarity on five points!

For the Church today, the relevant law is Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. 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, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

This should obviously be read in combination with an understanding of what the Church teaches about its own Magisterium, including the differentiated roles of the Pope, the bishops, etc. See especially canons 747-755 on the obligation to respect the authentic doctrine that the Church expounds. But the basic tenor is that people are bound to follow the teaching of the Church and respect its discipline, but can still make their opinions known if they are doing it in an orderly way. This does not amount to license to contradict the established doctrine of the Church. - Under Catholic dogma can someone publicly rebuke the Pope like Paul rebuked Peter?

As for the Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra and Cardinal Joachim Meisner starting the Great Apostasy is pure speculation and would be primarily opinion based at best. Personally, I personally think not!

Addendum:

Seeing that the OP has added comments invoking Stephen Walford’s article (Open Letter to the Four Dubia Cardinals) about the Dubia Cardinals, I will simply provide a few extra articles to be pursued at one’s leisure to see that there is more to this than meets the eye. Stephen Walford is a music teacher and not a theologian. The Controversy seems to be a large part due to this author and I simply wish to point out alternatives in Catholic thought. If writers criticize the Dubia Cardinals on theological basis or on a Canon Law basis, it would be only proper that Catholic writers would be competent in these fields as theologians or canon law lawyers. The OP also mentions this article (Cardinal Burke: “This is an opinion of Pope Francis as a man”) by Mike Lewis a writer and graphic designer from Maryland, yet again not a theologian.

• Canon 17 does not let us undercut Canon 915 and what it protects: A response to Stephen Walford
• From what, precisely, are Amoris Laetitia “dissenters” dissenting?
• Papal ghostwriter apparently copied his own work into Amoris Laetitia

Ron Conte is likewise not a true Catholic theologian in the strict sense of the word, yet is quoted in this issue by some. Here is what Dr. Bonnette has to say of him:

Having taught college level ethics for some twenty years myself, I find some substantive errors in Ron Conte’s teachings regarding sexual ethics. I won’t go into all the details, but they err on the side of telling people that some things are sins which are not. That could cause real problems for a lot of people, inducing cases of unwarranted scruples.

I am not saying that sexual ethics permits a lax conscience. Certainly, if you want solid guidance in these matters, it is best to consult traditional sources, such as Heribert Jone, Charles McFadden, Francis Connell, John Ford, Gerald Kelly, and Anthony Zimmerman.

Moreover, I am a bit uneasy about him calling himself a Catholic theologian, when he has simply bachelor degrees in philosophy and theology. Normally, a solid Catholic theologian has competence both in philosophy and theology up to the doctoral level. Admittedly, you will find people with all the right-sounding academic backgrounds who are theologically heterodox, such as Charles Curran or Richard McBrien. But still, the people I would prefer to consult on moral matters would have the properly-recognized credentials. Moreover, they would be recognized as authorities by good bishops.

He certainly reads like he knows all about Catholic theology, and this is what makes him even more troubling to me – since the average lay person has no way of easily detecting where he is correct and where he is in error.