Translate

Monday, October 16, 2017

WHILE I PERSONALLY DON’T LIKE IT, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH TWO POPES? PLENTY ACCORDING TO CRUX!

Pope Francis, like a triumphant politician, think Trump, emerged from his election to the loggia of St. Peter’s  Dressed down, casual in his greeting in Italian, showing in a somewhat arrogant way that he would be the anti- Benedict, that is, his papacy would be in discontinuity, a rupture with Benedict ‘s and John Paul II’s. This is a novel secular political thrust to the papacy dividing the Church  into political camps or parties!

However, every dead pope is always referred to as His Holiness or as pope. Once a pope always a pope. Pope Benedict is still pope as Presidents Bush, Bush, Carter and Obama are still refered to as President.

Pope Francis’ rupture with Benedict is the problem thus creating political parties in the Church herself or confirming the heresy of such that developed as a result of the “spirit of  Vatican  II” which Francis has recovered with a vengeance! With a living Pope Emeritus, the rupture is quite vivid and scandalous this energizing the Benedict Party to want to win the next election in order to undo the Francis effect. Francis, not Benedict, is to be blamed for this unprecedented politicalization of the Church and papacy!

Resigned pope creates ‘multiplied and divided’ authority, author says

Resigned pope creates ‘multiplied and divided’ authority, author says
From Crux, read the rest there:

What the author describes in his book is an ‘internalization’ by the Catholic Church of a conflict, typical of the political realm, that had never existed before. This matter is more relevant since both pontiffs recognize each other’s authority and position, something that had never occurred in papal history.

23 comments:

Peter the First said...

Nope, there ONE pope and ONE pope emeritus.

One sits on the Chair of Peter and one does not.

One is the Bishop of Rome and one is not.

Dead popes can be referred to a pope as long as history survives, but they are . . . dead.A retired four star general is called "General," but he/she commands . . . nothing.

President Obama, the Presidents Bush, President Carter, President Clinton - all formers, none in office, none with any more Constitutional authority than you or me.
If anyone, yourself included, is confused by the facts, get a good tutor and start to understand the reality.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Get a grip insecure Peter, you should be directing your insecure concerns to the character for the basis of the Crux article which obviously you did not read out of insecurity.

Peter the First said...

No need to read. There's ONE pope and ONE pope emeritus.

If the Crux item says there are TWO popes, then Crux is wrong.

Peter the First said...

"Pope Francis, Catholic neo-traditionalists and the legacy of Benedict XVI"

This dynamic understanding of the tradition is what terrifies the pope’s opponents. One can only wonder if they know how closely the papal texts are in line with the theology of the now-retired pope.

Massimo Faggioli

https://international.la-croix.com/news/pope-francis-catholic-neo-traditionalists-and-the-legacy-of-benedict-xvi/6127

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But Faggioli ‘s bloviating isn’t worth beans!

Peter the First said...

If anyone were to say, "There are SIX Presidents! President Trump, President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush, President Carter" you'd say "You're nuts! There's one president and 5 ex-presidents."

The same is true for the papacy.

There is ONE pope and ONE pope emeritus.

All this Fake consternation over "two" popes is nonsense. Utter nonsense.

TJM said...

Peter the First,

When you graduate from the Angelicum, we might listen to what you have to say. Until then, you're just another Soros paid troll to be ignored

Anonymous said...

There can only be one pope. The reason why people are considering the possibility that Benedict may still be that one pope is because the apparent pope, Francis, doesn’t appear to actually be Catholic, which people seem to agree is a requirement to be pope.

Anonymous said...

Francis most likely holds heretical beliefs and therefore is invalidly elected so we don't have two popes. And Benedict was probably pressured which would me we have one pope. Problem solved.And if Francis insists on changing the official teaching of the Church regarding the realty penalty then he will formally be declared heretic and we get a new conclave. Unless of course he disolves the college of cardinals and appoints a sucessor. Then we have more problems.

ByzRus said...

Like it or not, we have two popes: one that has the authority to sign documents and one that doesn't but still wields a lot of authority - enough to change the thinking and, perhaps the actions of the many who still eagerly wait for him to speak. Precarious? Yes. Dangerous? Perhaps.

So much of the turmoil could have been avoided after the abdication had Francis humbled himself to accept the Office as it was given to him. He choose a different path and from the moment he set foot on the balcony, it was obvious that continuity was not to be the order of the day. Who can forget the sick look on Msgr. Guido's face or, if watching the coverage on TV hosted by Bishop Wilton Gregory, him nearly being in tears and saying "Thanks be to God!" as though some truly awful nightmare had finally ended.

Without rehashing what we already know, Francis has taken the opportunity on numerous occasions to rebuke Benedict's reforms/re-establishment of tradition in addition to his frequent criticisms of those who favor tradition as "rigid" and being devotees of a "fad". All this while encouraging the faithful to "make a mess".

Indeed a mess has been made. A mess that is of Francis' hand.

Anonymous said...

“And if Francis insists on changing the official teaching of the Church regarding the death penalty then he will formally be declared heretic and we get a new conclave.“

I would’ve thought that about the last doctrine he changed too, but he’s still there and a new conclave doesn’t appear to be on the horizon.

Anonymous said...

"Francis most likely holds heretical beliefs and therefore is invalidly elected so we don't have two popes."

Oh, now we have an expert on theology and Canon Law on board!

How convenient.

And TJM, you've said before you were going to ignore me, but it didn't happen then and it won't happen now. Don't have to be a grad of the "Easy A" to figure that out.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone in the Savannah Diocese gets confused about "two bishops"---the current one and the retired one? I mean, no one wonders whether Bishop Hartmayer is really in charge, or (retired) Bishop Boland? When our Atlanta diocese had a retired diocesan from 2005-2011, no one up here wondered who was in charge. Ditto, we have one active pope and one retired one. Think we can live with that.

Peter the First said...

Anon 12:44. No one gets confused. People like to stir the pot by producing Fake News stories and, then, some people think it is clever to pass these stories on.

There is no confusion. There's a small, very small group that has not "liked" Pope Francis since he appeared without a mozzetta after his canonical election.

They're going to be peeved until a pope to their liking is elected. Maybe that will be the next pontiff, maybe not. Until then, they actually have come to crave, I think, the agitation they create for themselves and then try to get the rest of us, who know better, to join them as company in their misery.

Anonymous said...

People are confused because, while it is common for their to be emeritus bishops, there has never before been an emeritus pope. Adding to the confusing is that, in this unprecedented situation, the pope is causing doctrinal confusion on a number of fronts. I imagine this would be all the more confusing for people who believed that Pope Benedict was a bastion of orthodoxy.

TJM said...

Anonymous, the only two posters I said I would ignore is uber ultra montanist, Mark Thomas, and snarky Father Kavanaugh.So which one are you? Your style is definately more Kavanaugh than Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

I don't know any Catholic who is confused and/or up on arms in regard to the notion that the we have "two Popes."

There are Catholics who are confused about the topic at hand? Why?

Pope Benedict XVI resigned as Pope. Cardinal Bergoglio was elected Pope. It is unmistakable that His Holiness Pope Francis is Pope.

As Father McDonald declared many times, Pope Francis is very "pre-Vatican II" in that His Holiness has exercised without hesitation his awesome, God-given authority to teach, govern, and sanctify the Holy People of God.

But then, when has a Pope not acted in that fashion?

Even Blessed Pope Paul VI, who was "weak" supposedly, wielded his Papal authority without hesitation. He decreed one reform after another. He even imposed the Novus Ordo upon us. Such is the monumental power of a Pope.

Pope Francis has conducted himself in the fashion of his predecessors. Everybody knows that within the Catholic Church, Pope Francis is Pope.

I find it difficult to believe that people are confused, frightened, or nervous as to the following: Pope Benedict XVI resigned as Pope. He lives in Rome. His successor is His Holiness Pope Francis.

What is the problem with that? Why would that fill a Catholic with confusion and fear?

Sorry, but I don't get it. God is in control of Holy Mother Church. Pope Francis alone is the Roman Pontiff. What is the problem?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Threat to ignore issued at 10:50 a.m.

Prediction of futility issued at 12:26 p.m.

Fulfillment of prediction at 2:42 p.m.

DING! We have a winner!

ByzRus said...

Anonymous @ 4:07

Then, if I'm understanding this correctly, you are the loser, right?

Anonymous said...

Riiiiiight.......

Rood Screen said...

An intelligent Catholic will see that the issue here is not how many supreme pontiffs we have, but how many competing doctrines.

TJM said...

BrzRC, you are correct, since today is the first time I suggested ignoring this Soros paid troll.

rcg said...

The hazard is that comment or guidance could inadvertently undermine the acting Pope or conversly repudiate the initiatives of the previous pontiff. That has already happened. In the military, previous commanders were sent to far reaches or buried in large headquarters to prevent this sort of thing.

It would be a great loss to no longer experience the mind of Ratzinger while he is still alive. I hope he is still writing.