A few Cardinals--including Wisconsin's very own Cdl. Burke--have openly questioned one of Francis' documents, but notably have NOT called for his removal, nor voiced an opinion about the status of B-16.
So this is interesting.
...One might reasonably argue, however, that Bergoglio has already attacked the foundations of the Church with his outrageous authorization of Holy Communion for public adulterers in “more complex cases.” Or his absurd “development” of the Church’s teaching on capital punishment, declaring “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” what the Church has approved for 2,000 years, based on divine revelation, precisely as a defense of the inviolability and dignity of the person.Christopher Ferrara is obviously not a fan of Francis.
Here, however, we encounter the question whether the Holy Ghost has allowed the Church to be afflicted for a time by a de facto antipope whose election cannot be contested and whose papacy must be presumed valid until such time as a successor Pope or Council declares otherwise. On that vexed issue, in my view, we can have nothing definitive to say, meaning nothing by which the Church as a whole could gain operative certitude and proceed accordingly. What is certain, however, is that this Pope must be opposed in his efforts to undermine the Faith....
The situation worldwide is similar to the situation in Milwaukee when Rembert Weakland was appointed Archbishop here: the Holy Ghost allowed this Church to be afflicted for a time. There was some good that came from that affliction--a lot of Catholics had to go back to the books on doctrine, dogma, and praxis, meaning that they had to REALLY learn the Faith. The same applies here.
So, as Ferrara implies, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all, except pray as though everything depended on God. After all, it does!
4 comments:
You don’t seem to be following Ann Barnhardt...?
Matthew 17:20 my Catholic friend...
I don't think Ms. Barnhart is a canon lawyer and I'm sure she's not a Bishop or Cardinal, my Catholic friend.
That is a straw man deflection rebuttal. Do we need to be lawyers to understand many laws of the land?
Does the fact that she is not a canon lawyer strike away the possibility of her being correct?
I’m dumbfounded at Catholics accepting the concept of two Popes both wearing white, both living in the Vatican. Simple research of history by any lawmen clearly conveys something is a miss.
I’ll give you Ann has a bit of an annoying voice and she belabors points, but I find her extremely insightful, highly intelligent, and I believe she is living a Saints life.
She is very much worth following, and may be a bit of a sort of Joan of Arc for our times (albeit God is not giving her visions, but probably Graces most of us cannot imagine).
Thank you for blogging, I follow many Catholic and political blogs and like what you have to say.
I’m dumbfounded at Catholics accepting the concept of two Popes
I don't think there are "two" Popes.
More important: our salvation, and that of our children, is not dependent on the number of white-hatted men, nor the courage or timidity of laity, Bishops, or Cardinals.
Our salvation depends on us conforming ourselves to Christ in self-sacrifice.
IOW, let's keep our priorities straight!
Look, friend (and thanks for your compliments on the blog).....there's way too much flip-flap over the question of "Who's Pope?" It's kinda interesting, but it's also becoming a way to split souls from the Church. That's a big bowl of Not Good.
Post a Comment