Pope Francis has replied to a plea for an answer to a question, and has done so within SIX WEEKS!!
A well-known theologian has commented with immense joy, pointing out how wonderful it is
"that Francis answered at all and did not let my appeal fall on deaf ears";
"that he replied himself and not via his private secretary or the secretary of state";
"that he clearly read the appeal most attentively";
"that he is highly appreciative".
Who is the theologian? Hans Kueng. What was his appeal? That PF would allow free discussion concerning the doctrine of papal infallibility, which Kueng has spent a lot of his life attacking.
Kueng wrote to PF on March 9 2016; his ecstatic press statement describing PF's reply was released to The Tablet on April 27 2016.
Papal Infallibility is a dogma solemnly defined by an Ecumenical Council, Vatican I, in 1870. Its teaching included anathemas against those who denied the doctrine.
Kueng says that PF "set no restrictions. He has thus responded to my request to give room to a free discussion on the dogma of infallibility. I think it is now imperative to use this new freedom ..." etc. etc..
This gripping news broke some weeks before the recent spate of Internet papers by court theologians arguing that documents like Amoris laetitia require a more obsequious acceptance from the theological community than they have in some quarters received.
So ... assuming that Kueng has not been telling naughty porkies ... on the one hand, obsequious submission is required; on the other, the whole fundamental substructure of the Petrine Ministry is up for grabs!!
You couldn't make it up, could you?
Double standards (2), (3), and (4) are due to follow.
This is actually hysterically funny. A fierce laugh is a great way to being a day. Thank you good Father
ReplyDeleteThe irony, of course, is that if the pope is not infallible in matters of faith and morals, when speaking ex cathedra, why should we bother to listen to Pope Francis at all? Why should I consider his statements any more authoritative than St. Paul's, or St. John Paul II? I'm just askin'.
ReplyDeletePlease pray for the conversion of pope Francis.
ReplyDeleteA suggestion that might be considered outside the pale of principled probity is the suggestion that insane and/or heterodox claims advanced publicly ought be responded to with audible laughter, whether the source is The POTUS or the Pope.
ReplyDeleteOf course, many men will object such a response would tend to demean the office of the Papacy or the Presidency when it seems to ABS the response of laughter to absurdity tends to strengthen the respect and love of the office if the man occupying it is unworthy of it and whose praxis is tending to demean the office he occupies.
Treating with sincere respect the heterodox actions of any Pope will strengthen the office of the Papacy how?
Imagine what would happen were a Pope to hear laughter and see the embarrassed grins of his fellow Bishops were he to appear before a Synod to publicly advance and advocate proposals that are quite clearly heterodox and/or heretical but in any event proposals that are clearly a rupture with the praxis of the 265 previous Popes?
Why'n'hell are Prelates, Priests, and the poor pew dwellers expected to smile and nod before such demented and diabolical actions?
The man is set against himself, time after time.
ReplyDeleteSuch is the joyless lot of a man who will not bend the knee before the Logos of the Father.
Mother of Mercy, pray, please we beseech thee, for the miraculous conversion of Francis.
"When thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest the face of the ground."
+JMJ+
I am finding it increasingly difficult to comment on articles that involve the Holy Father. The reason is that reason itself almost demands the use of the "H" word when speaking of the Current Occupant and such words that start with "H" are frowned upon by most moderators of Catholic comment boxes.
ReplyDeleteIf this keeps up, we will, I predict, see the total demise of comboxes attached to Catholic blogs and news outlets, which, come to think of it, might be THE sterling accomplishment of this entire pontificate.
In my experience, such self-contradictory behaviour reveals that a person regards 'truth' and 'reason' as purely strategic and tactical categories. Undermining, even demolishing papal infallibility, would, of course, be a tool for tearing down all the old 'rigid' doctrines that stand in the way of the revolution. But at exactly the same time, stridently insisting that every utterance of the present occupant of the Holy See is directly inspired by 'The Spirit' and ruthlessly pursuing anyone who demurs, helps to ensure that the revolutionary agenda proceeds apace. Do they not worry that these claims are logically opposed and that the second one produces far more authoritarian pontificating than the first? That only matters to you if you care about something as abstract and merely 'intellectual' (a pejorative term now, apparently) as 'logic'. The direction of travel and 'progress' is not in doubt and is not really up for debate, unless such debate can be manipulated to further the predetermined cause. The arguments you use, the policies you enforce, the edicts you issue, the positions you adopt, even the people you ally yourself with, these are all just weapons that come to hand in the revolutionary drive to create a new reality. If these strategic tools appear to contradict each other on some dry, academic level, so what? It's results alone that count.
ReplyDelete[P.S. Naturally, I am not directly attributing any of the above directly to PF as conscious thoughts. Although I could not say the same of some of his advisers. However, I shall understand if you do not wish to publish this comment].
This reminds me of a dubium submitted by Dr Heinz-Jurgen Vogels to the Vatican concerning the divinely conferred right of the clergy to marry pursuant to I Cor 9:5 - he received a reply from the Secretariat of State: " We do not wish to decide!"
ReplyDeleteIf he had no case that such a right existed, the secretariat could have quite easily replied that no such right was in fact conferred by Our Lord.
Just consider the implications ...
Has the papal response to Dr. Kung been published? So far we have only his own interested interpretation of it.
ReplyDelete