There have been a number of apologies made by people who believe that they have given the impression that they were criticizing the Pope.
Michael Voris made his 'apology' here, even though he called it a 'clarification'. Cardinal Burke issued a clarification as did Dr. Malloy.
Dr. Malloy's 'I Apologize' post is reproduced below - because it is no longer available on his site.
I will note that I do not have Dr. Malloy's permission to post this apology, and I only do so to maintain a copy as an example of a phenomenon. If he requests that I remove it ... I will do so willingly.
The common thread between Voris and Dr. Malloy is found in the last paragraph:
God has given us Peter. We do not need to run to a guru. Our Peter is Francis. Let us pray for him, as he serves us(1). I apologize for having marred my own reception and anyone else’s reception of this great gift of God to us(2). I thank God for good example of other public theologians doing the same. I repudiate all schism(3). Without Peter, no salvation (Boniface VIII)(4). And I thank God for the marvelous sacrament of Confession, which is valid only if offered by those priests who are in full communion and regular canonical situation with Rome and the particular church(5), whereby my foolishness can be brought back into the charity of the fold.There are a few problems with this paragraph or at least what I perceive as the thought behind it.
Point by point here are my thoughts:
- It is important to remember that the Successor of Peter is the Vicar of Christ - not Christ Himself. As such, if Peter denies Our Lord, we are not to follow his example.
- That the Papacy is the Unity of Both Faith and Communion is de fide. However, it remains that the Pope can err when he steps speaks as a private person. If he deviates from the Truth that then hierarchy has an obligation to speak the truth with clarity. When they fail in their duty, it falls upon the rounded shoulders of the laity. Always with respect for the person who holds the office of the Papacy.
- If the Pope errs, saying the truth does not constitute schism. If the Pope breaks with the past by setting aside various rules etc - is this not a schismatic act (non canonical) in severing the ties that bind to the traditions of the Church?
- See #2
- Well this appears to be vastly wrong.
- Even Fr. Z claims that the confessions of the Orthodox (read:schismatic) are valid - heck just look at the Code of Canon Law. So that undermines the entire thesis.
- In the case of the SSPX, in cases where there is ignorance etc - the Church Herself supplies the jurisdiction. This is without recourse to the concept of a 'state of necessity'.
- There is a difference between the statements that the SSPX executes no legitimate ministry within the Church and the invalidity of the Sacraments that people, in their understanding of a state of necessity, seek from them.
The first and highest law in the Church is the Salvation of Souls.
That ought to count for something.