(1) I do not enable comments which suggest that Jorge Bergoglio is not pope. Having examined, over and over again, historical analogies and reliable authors, I have no doubt that the correct analysis is that this disordered and uncharitable individual is pope. I know no evidence of it being suggested, in the past, that any pope had "lost" his office through heresy or any other crime. Tradition makes it clear that subsequent magisterial anathematisation is the correct procedure.
Being a Traditionalist means taking Tradition seriously, not making it up as one goes along to suit one's own fads and passions.
S John Henry Newman spoke of unworthy shepherds having voluntarily placed their authority in SUSPENSE. Precisely. That fits the facts, the precedents, and the realities of the situation. And, given the status of JHN, makes it difficult for anybody to be taken to task for employing this analysis.
And it also means ... since none of us is infallible ... that, if I am wrong, when I go to my account I shall not have to face charges of having seduced Christ's people from Communion with the Successor of S Peter. But, believe me, I am not wrong!
(2) Because bloggers do, apparently, bear some responsibility for what occurs on their threads, I do not, I very much regret, enable comments in languages of which I have not an adequate knowledge. Sorry!
God save New Zealand!! And the Pays Basque! And Kurdistan!
God bless and keep you all in the 'One Fold of the Redeemer'.
I have found the notion of “suspense” both convincing and helpful.
I would like to know how and whether the (Pontifical) authority could be *partially* in suspense, though. If the authority places *some* acts and magisterially answers *some* questions, but avoid others that perhaps it ought to place or answer, what then?
No doubt there are people who believe that Bergoglio has lost his office; but there are others who believe he never took it up, for the simple reason that Benedict never validly vacated it. Therefore your objection to the defection-of-Bergoglio theory does not sufficiently explain your refusal to publish comments suggesting that Francis is no pope. (This comment of course makes no such suggestion.)
But aren't you diverging too much from the Holy Father's own teaching on sacramental validity?
Pope Francis has said that "the great majority of sacramental marriages are invalid." His view is that modern couples are unable to have the correct intention and so cannot effectively receive the sacrament. That many marriages fail is taken as proof that the sacrament has often not occurred.
Following faithfully this teaching of Pope Francis we can apply it to other sacraments. The widespread failure of bishops to fulfil their vocational calling to teach is directly analogous with widespread marriage failure.
In the spirit of Pope Francis, surely we can say that the great majority of episcopal ordinations are invalid?
No doubt there are people who believe that a blogger is obliged to publish all comments; but there are others who believe that he is entitled to judge which comments are enabled, for the simple reason that it's his blog. Therefore he need not explain any such decision to the satisfaction of the commentator. (This comment of course is also subject to the approval of the moderator).
Fr Justin, of course Father Hunwicke need not explain his moderation policy; but he has volunteered an explanation that doesn’t fully explain the policy. I would be interested to know his view on the Benedict-is-still-Pope thesis, as I find him to be a well-informed and perceptive commentator on questions about Papal authority; but I agree, the blogger does not have an obligation to answer the dubia of his readers!
I do not have any original ideas.
Thus, I prefer the Mass as the perfect alternative to academic discourse.
"I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord's divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the "Ecclesia docta" than by the ''Ecclesia docens;'' that the body of the episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the Pope, at other times the patriarchal, metropolitan, and other great sees, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them.”
JHN, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, The Rambler, July 1859, Volume I, pt 2, pg 213
Post a Comment