“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.” ― St. Antony the Great
Considering the seriousness of the questions put to him by
the cardinals, Pope Francis’ decision not to respond is incomprehensible. The
cardinals have cautioned the Holy Father that consequences will follow his
refusal of their dubia. Cardinal Burke explained in his interview with Edward
Pentin that the Pope's lack of response may trigger a formal act of correction.
Pentin asked, “What happens if the Holy Father does not respond to your act of
justice and charity and fails to give the clarification of the Church’s
teaching that you hope to achieve?"
To which Cardinal Burke replied,
“Then we would have to address that situation. There is, in
the Tradition of the Church, the practice of correction of the Roman Pontiff.
It is something that is clearly quite rare. But if there is no response to
these questions, then I would say that it would be a question of taking a
formal act of correction of a serious error…”.
Pentin asked a follow up question, “If the Pope were to
teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what
would be the consequences?” Cardinal Burke replied,
The problem is, cardinals and bishops are still pro-IIVC and they don't judge errors and heresies based on dogmas, canons and decrees of pre-pope J XXIII era, as if the Church sprang out into existence like a Jack-in-a-box since 1965. Even the Denzinger of 1963 edition included spurious stuffs that had been rejected in the 1954 Denzinger edition. And Mgr Fenton was very critical of the 1963 Denzinger. So how competent will the current Church's doctrinal watchdogs be?
If the vote of a majority of the cardinals were required to condemn Bergoglio's heresy, I seriously doubt that it could be attained in the present time. Most Cardinals either agree with the Pope or are too indifferent or coward to oppose him.
If just a few are brave enough to join in the condemnation, many of the rest will hurl their accusations of scandal and unfaithfulness to them, and ssow still more confusion and division in the Church
6 comments:
All of this is most heartening news Vox. It brings both sorrow that it need be done and joy that it is being done.
The problem is, cardinals and bishops are still pro-IIVC and they don't judge errors and heresies based on dogmas, canons and decrees of pre-pope J XXIII era, as if the Church sprang out into existence like a Jack-in-a-box since 1965. Even the Denzinger of 1963 edition included spurious stuffs that had been rejected in the 1954 Denzinger edition. And Mgr Fenton was very critical of the 1963 Denzinger. So how competent will the current Church's doctrinal watchdogs be?
When I try to open the included link on my computer I get this:
"The page you were looking for doesn't exist."
Sorry! But, it is where I end up.
Karl
But, I went to the "home" page and managed to get there after all!
Karl
Piquant 14th century vignettes don't quite seem relevant to a 21st century post-Christian world.
Then again, Christ himself may have something to say about that?!
If the vote of a majority of the cardinals were required to condemn Bergoglio's heresy, I seriously doubt that it could be attained in the present time. Most Cardinals either agree with the Pope or are too indifferent or coward to oppose him.
If just a few are brave enough to join in the condemnation, many of the rest will hurl their accusations of scandal and unfaithfulness to them, and ssow still more confusion and division in the Church
Post a Comment