Some, supply your own adjective, here, quotes me and then suggests I am suggesting that Pope Benedict did not resign ‘freely’ with the implication, presumably therefore that Francis is not a validly elected Pope, that is nonsense.It is the type of logic coming from Roman courtiers who can make 2+2=5. Let me be quite clear Benedict was Pope, he is not now; Francis is Pope both de facto and also de jure, it is Francis I pray for at Mass, not Benedict or anyone else.
This 2+2=5er suggests I am suggesting Benedict did not resign ‘freely’ that is blatant lie. Very few of us act with absolute freedom; age, advice or pressure from others, fear or even threats might well influence our decisions but unless someone was physically forcing Benedict’s hand to write his name at the foot of his resignation, and pressed his seal to it amidst squeals of protestation, he did indeed act ‘freely’.
There is a great deal of nonsense written by these sort of sedevacantists or quasi- sedevacantists. The truth is that the Pope is the one who sits on the cathedra of Peter, possibly there might be doubt if there is a squabble over at the inaugural Mass or in the past the Coronation, no such thing happened with Francis, there is no anti-Pope and no alternative. Benedict’s resignation was followed by his filial acceptance of Francis’ election. Though one might regret he is no longer Pope, that does not mean anything: Francis is Pope, there is no other.
A great deal is said by some about JPII’s rules for a Papal Election, they do not alter the fact that Francis is also the Supreme Lawgiver, having been acknowledge as Pope by the College of Electors, the clergy and people of Rome, and the bishops, clergy and laity of the world, he alone has the ability to judge the validity of his election and whether it fulfilled JPII’s rules. Obviously he judges his election to be valid and Benedict’s resignation to be valid and legitimate.
I suppose Traditionalists might prefer older forms of election, there are plenty of good examples from history of the electors being coerced: an army bearing down on Rome happened from time to time, bribing the electors happened, the imprisonment or deaths of opposing cardinal electors happened, none of which invalidated any Papal election. Indeed even when there were three popes it seems at least in here in England all three were included in the Canon of the Mass.
Forgive me if this sounds angry but whilst I am happy to be quoted by anyone, even if the disagree with me, I think I have the right to be quoted accurately and not have my words deliberately misinterpreted - it is called 'honesty' and 'having integrity'.
The last time I looked this mischief maker or is it just a fool had not put up my correction or removed or corrected the post.
13 comments:
An excellent piece Fr Ray. You are indeed correct that Francis is the one and only Pope. Nobody accepts this more than Benedict. Down through history there have indeed been many "doubtful" papal elections. Indeed if we were to be rigid in our interpretations of history there would have been several "invalid" elections - Boniface VIII replacing Celestine V being one. There have been great popes and poor popes but we can only hope and pray that the Spirit somehow can operate in the most unpromising places.
Not sure I agree with the "only he can judge the validity of his election" line. A bit circular.
Dear Father, in the church history we have at least 9 ANTI-POPES (ALSO SOMEHOW "ELECTED")
Quite Right. The problem is that many who are "traditionalist" don't actually hold a "traditionalist" understanding of sovereignty. They want the law to be sovereign over the Pope, which is the liberal view, thoroughly condemned. The Papacy is not a Constitutional Monarchy but an Absolute Monarchy. Because a Pope is above the law, saying that a Pope cannot do X because it is contrary to the law is not a valid argument. Different arguments have to be made.
The dickering over who is and who isn't Pope that some want to engage in has to end because it is a distraction from the real present problems that are facing the Church, especially one's local parish. If a layman thinks he is under pressure and frustrated, consider the pressure and frustration that your local moderately orthodox parish priest is under.
I have a worry father. It seems from their own admissions that a spiritual democratic party was formed the St Gallen group who proceeded to campaign for the election of one of their own Pope Bergoglio. They actually did campaign did then the Holy Spirit call this group to order? Did the Third Person or rather does the third person indwell in this secular political way to campaign for votes? Or does the Holy Spirit not trust His own ability to influence Holiness or even consider we do not hear Him?
Technically-speaking, I think it is incorrect that only Benedict can judge his actions.
As Pope, maybe, but he's not Pope anymore.
So the new Pope, or, more appropriate to the discussion for those that want to go there, a future Pope, could, it would seem, be in a spot to judge his actions.
We have, after all, the example of Stephen/Formosus to reflect on...
Just to be clear, the Pope is not sovereign over Divine law or natural law.
There are any examples of doubtful popes. I know all about the scoundrels of the Medici, Borgia, Farnese and many others. The Spirit for whatever reason selected them. I, with huge reservation accept that.
For some time I have learnt to skip over the rather weird comments of sadievacantist.
The Holy Spirit doesn't select the Pope. Men select the Pope. The Holy Spirit works with whatever choice men make, even if it is a bad choice.
Anita,
That is what BXVI said.
Well said, Anita. You learned your Theology well in Front Royal!
Fr. SMC "Pope Francis I is definitely the true pope....and we deserve him"
Love your irony Father. Yes, we are getting what we deserve. Unfortunately.
Post a Comment