The post below this one where Cardinal Kasper has an interview at Vatican Radio's website tells me that one the the closest progressive advisors to Pope Francis is alarmed about the talk and in high places as well as low places, that Pope Francis may be teaching heresy in that damn footnote in Amoris Laetitia or at least allowing heretical interpretations of that footnote.
Why would a progressive cardinal close to the pope be alarmed? Here I ask for your help. Some say if a pope teaches heresy and does not recant, he ceases to be pope. Is this true? Or a pope who persists in allowing Hersey to evolve could be deposed or after his papacy declared an anti-pope. Is this true in theory?
But let's add another curious aspect to our fantasy world of theory. The truly fantastic aspect of the current confusion and division in the Church caused by a pontiff who is suppose to be an agent of unity in the Church, a bridge builder, is living in a time with no parallel in Church history where his predecessor is still living and if the new pope isn't an anti-pope he does seem to be an anti-Benedict and in rupture with his predecessor and others before him. What are the ramifications of this?
Finally, we have a so-called emeritus pope living at the Vatican who as the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith called to task those who would disfigure the Catholic Faith with progressive ideologies. As Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger sparred with Cardinal Kasper and called out his ideologies. He also called out Jesuit Father James Martin and the head of America Magazine and had him removed.
At Pope Francis first Angelus, His Holiness praised Cardinal Kasper and promoted a book on mercy he had written. Later he placed Fr. James Martin into the department of communications.
Some believe, in our world of make believe and theory, that Pope Benedict was forced to resign either because of outside influences of the "wolves" he spoke of at the beginning of his papacy or depression, clinical depression, that compromised his free will in making such a monumental decision. If he were under any kind of duress to make this decision, in theory, in our make believe world, his resignation (abdication) would be invalid, no?
If Pope Benedict's abdication were called into question and seen as invalid, or if Pope Benedict seeing the division and confusion that is caused in the highest places of the Church decided to come forward and say he did resign under duress (or left a video tape of his concerns and confession to be viewed only after his death) what would this mean for the papacy and the Church?
Would we have a schism greater than the Great Schism or would it just involve us Church geeks who live in a make believe world?
13 comments:
Francis is the legitimate bishop of Rome, period. There's no point searching for loopholes. We're stuck with him and with his disdain for Catholicism. JPII and BXVI should have appointed better cardinals. The cardinal-electors should have sought fidelity, rather than novelty, in their choice for pope. The rest of us now need to pick up this papal cross daily and carry it to Heaven. There's nothing else we can do. A future ecumenical council will set everything right again.
Nonetheless Pope Benedict is the wild card in all of this....time will tell...
Pope EMERITUS Benedict, you mean.....
Some say that, but I ..........
Anonymous,
The position is "bishop of Rome", "supreme pontiff", etc. "Pope" is merely a form of address, and may be applied to BXVI, who's position is "pontiff emeritus".
He must answer the sun is. What is he afraid of. He and his mouthpieces keep saying doctrine has not changed. So answer the questions.
There are strong hints that PF wants to give Episcopal Conferences considerable autonomy, even in doctrinal matters. This was mentioned tangentially in Evangelii Gaudium. Müller made it quite clear that there is no intermediate level between a diocesan bishop and the Bishop of Rome, and never has been. This is probably one reason for his abrupt dismissal.
Now, reforming Vatican dicasteries is one thing; altering on a personal whim the divinely authorized governance of the Church is quite another. I doubt whether this will bother most Mass-going Catholics, but it is of enormous significance. No doubt it will be referenced back to Lumen Gentium and the idea of collegiality, but this cannot be what the Council fathers intended, since national Conferences are very much a post-Conciliar pnenomenon.
The effect of semi-autonomous national 'Churches' on the so-called Anglican Communion is lamentably clear. If PF wants to lead the Church of Rome in a similar direction he is not entitled to do so, and apart from the schism which he would undoubtedly cause, he would forfeit the allegiance of orthodox Catholics.
But he is an old man in a hurry who knows that time is running out. Once he goes (and one hopes that this will be sooner rather than later) his acolytes, Spadaro, Fernandez et al. will sink without trace. And it will be another thousand years before the cardinals elect a second Jesuit pope.
Is his health an issue? I suspect he has many more years to go. Additionally, I think the College is stacked to provide an endless succession of popes like Francis. It will take something pretty big to remove the influences of the people that elected him.
Although JPII was a responsive shepherd and BXVI is a great theologian, it was their poor administrative skills that brought us to this point. By failing to stamp out episcopal heresy and immorality, and by appointing faithless bishops to the college of cardinals, they paved the way for the present moment. Shame on them both, but may God have mercy upon them. If my assessment is wrong, then may God have mercy on me.
Let's make believe it is October 31, 1517 and somebody please go nail 95 Theses to Francis' door.
Francis is the pope. God is God. Jesus reigns. Our troubles do not call any of this into doubt.
Another homosexual scandal is surfacing in the Vatican. This would be a good opportunity to tkae the band-aide off that sore and clean it. That could solve many things.
I have to agree with Fr. Martin. Buyer's remorse and customer dissatisfaction are separate and distinct from the legitimacy of this papacy. If not, good luck proving it. Regarding Fr. AJM's schism question, anymore, my inclination is that it will be limited to us Church geeks living in our own make believe world.
Post a Comment