This is an incredible article in LaStampa’s “Inside the Vatican” and it only took the current papacy six years on March 13 to create such chaos, angst and polarization. But it is best to shift the blame.
Press for full article:
The authority of the pope comes from Christ, and it is divinely protected. Vatican I clearly teaches that “the See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples”
9 comments:
I wonder how often other popes had articles like this written? Francis is special.
For me personally, I agree with the theology of this article. In the past orthodox Catholics decried the heterodox attacks against Paul VI, JPII and Benedict. Orthodox Catholics at the time of VI supported his trying to reign in the forces of hereodox Catholicism as it regarded wild experimentation with the Mass, married priests, female priests and all the rubbish Mother Angelica rants about in her video.i don’t think Paul VI thought that there would be such chaos in the Church. He felt Catholics would be obedient to what was allowed to change but never go to the extremes of demanding heterodoxy, heresy and blasphemy.
Unfortunately, Pope Francis through the use of ambiguity has pulled the rug out from under the feet of the very ones who would have been his greatest supporters.
Father McDonald,
Your last sentence is the money quote. Spot on.
Methinks Francis pulled that rug because he doesn't like us and he WANTS us to fall.
Fastiggi's article makes so much use of Lumen Gentium (LM) in making the pope seem like Christ re-incarnated on earth that one wonders if the LM is not heretical. Distinctions need to be made, but the documents of V2 are so unique from previous Councils with their frequent vagueness, imprecision and lack of distinctions in the rambling, that they are time-bombs to allow the transformation of the Church from Christianity to something else in the future. One just has to reflect on Francis's ideas on the 6th commandment to see that the time-bombs are starting to explode.
What this article misses is that a lot of people are not at all attacking the pope's authority at all. On the contrary, their concerns and complaints manifestly acknowledge it -- or else, why get worked up? If Father Fox or, forgive me, our genial host, published things that were confusing or ambiguous, there would not be near the same outcry, why? Because we don't have the authority that the successor of Peter has.
No, the issue mainly is that people -- recognizing the pope's authority and his person, are distressed that it is being harmed by off-the-cuff comments at news conferences, by repeated visits to an unreliable old journalist who doesn't take notes and consistently makes embarrassing claims, and by official documents that -- I'm sorry to say -- range from ambiguous to a mess.
Urging the Holy Father to refrain from these things is not "attacking" him, or his authority. It is -- at least on my part and on the part of many more -- an act of charity. We love him, we love his office, we love the Church and her mission; and so we want to help him be more successful, and to have his successors be more successful.
Also, we do not want him to have his authority tied to things that are contrary to the Gospel. By that I mean: the ambiguity in Amoris Laetitia being used as a means by bishops and priests to contradict the Gospel, and something similar happening with the whole business of communion-for-Protestants in Germany. Raising these concerns is not an attack on the pope, but an act of love for him and for the Gospel. And if those of us who raise these concerns didn't fully acknowledge his authority, they wouldn't make any sense.
Father Fox,
Beautifully stated and exactly correct. The people Santita is relying on what to undermine papal authority and the teaching authority of the Magesterium, that is their long-term goal.
Fathers Fox and McDonald,
I thought you both might appreciate this prescient statement from Pius XII upon his election as Pope:
Pius XII warns of "a Church which weakens the law of God, adapting it to the taste of human desires, when she should loudly proclaim and defend it" and which would give herself over to "the shifting sands of the opinions of the day." He asks: "Would you recognize in such a Church the features of your Mother’s face? Can you imagine a Successor of the first Peter, who would bow to similar demands?" Can anyone now deny that we live in just such a time as this?
Loose lips, sink ships...
Post a Comment