| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 30.547
Post: 12.670 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
The indispensable duties of cardinals
in the Holy Roman Church
by Roberto De Mattei
Translated from
December 14, 2016
In his address on December 5, 2016, to the Lepanto Foundation, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke said:
The weight on the shoulders of a cardinal is enormous. We are the Senate of the pope and his primary counselors [But not in Bergoglio's eyes, no! He does not consider all the cardinals his counselors, only those 9 he has constituted into his Crown Council, and the rest of the cardinals can go counsel someone else - they're nothing to him unless they express full agreement with everything he says and does], and we must, above all, serve the pope in telling him the truth. To pose questions, as we did, is in the tradition of the Church, precisely to avoid divisions and confusion.[Well, this pope evidently chooses to promote divisions and confusion - 'Haga lio!', remember? - ignoring that his primary duties as pope are to maintain the unity of the Church, not to provoke division; and to confirm, not confuse, his brothers in the faith. Certainly not to the international leader of the Left, relentlessly pushing the agenda of the anti-Catholic liberal world. Equally obvious is that he is carrying out his agenda tactically and strategically by consistently misrepresenting the Truth (who is Jesus, God himself) because he thinks his 'truth' is an improvement on Jesus!]
We have shown great respect for the Petrine office, without lacking in respect for the person of the pope. There are many questions, but the five principal questions that we posed must necessarily have a response for the salvation of souls.
We pray everyday to get an answer that will be faithful to tradition, in the uninterrupted apostolic line which goes back to our Lord Jesus Christ.
[The questions are really a quixotic challenge to Bergoglio, because the Four Cardinals cannot have realistically expected him to answer NO, YES, YES, YES, YES (or vice-versa) to the DUBIA. If he could answer the right and only way, he would never have called the farcical family synods to begin with! And he cannot answer truthfully, as he really thinks, because he would never hang himself for material heresy with his own words!]
With these words, Cardinal Burke recalled the importance of the mission of cardinals, who hold the highest rank in the Catholic Church, after the supreme rank of the Sovereign Pontiff. They are, in effect [but not in the church of Bergoglio], the principal collaborators and advisers of the pope in the government of the universal Church. [You can tell how little he thinks of them when he decided not to meet the cardinals in full consistory at his last cardinal-making event. Would that not have been the perfect opportunity, just a few weeks since he got the DUBIA, to consult the cardinals gathered in Rome about how to address these unprecedented DUBIA presented to a sitting pope? But he chose not to because to do that might (would) have led more cardinals to join the Four Cardinals in demanding an answer to the DUBIA.]
Their institution is very old, because already under Pope Sylvester (314-335), we find references to 'cardinal deacons'. But it seems we owe to St. Peter Damian the definition of the College of Cardinals as 'the Senate of the Church', adopted by the Benedictine (XV) Code of Canon Law in 1917 (Canon 230).
The Sacred College has a juridical personality which attributes to it the triple character of coadjutor organ, supplementary organ, and elective organ responsible for electing a Pope.
One must not make the mistake of elevating the cardinals' role as advisers to the pope to that of 'co-deciders'. Even when he finds support from the advice and assistance of the cardinals, the pope never loses his plenitudo potestatis [fullness of power].
Cardinals do not participate in his power than in exercising it within the limits that the pope himself defines. Vis-a-vis the pope, cardinals never have any deliberative powers, only consultative.
If it is convenient for the pope to avail of the assistance of the College of Cardinals [And he chose not to do so about the DUBIA, and AL in general, although he spent the 2014 'secret consistory' having them lectured to by Cardinal Kasper as his obvious surrogate on their anti-Catholic 'gospel of the family'] even if he is not obliged to do so, cardinals have the moral obligation to advise the pope, to ask him questions, and eventually, to admonish him, independent of whether the pope welcomes their words or not.
The presentation of the DUBIA by the Four Cardinals to the pope and to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asking him to clarify "the serious disorientation and great confusion" arising from his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, fits perfectly into the duties of cardinals and cannot be the object of any censure.
As canonist Edwards Peters (a formal consultant to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura) wrote, the Four Cardinals "carried out a textbook application of their right under Canon 212, §3 to raise doctrinal and disciplinary questions which need to be answered at this time".
And if the Holy Father should fail to do so, the cardinals - collectively - would address him with a fraternal correction in the spirit of the admonition given by St. Paul to St. Peter in Antioch (Gal 2,11).
Peters concludes by saying: "How some could come to the conclusion that the Four Cardinals have thereby become susceptible to losing their rank escapes me. No one - least of all the Four Cardinals themselves - is casting doubt on the special and supreme authority that the pope has in the Church (Canon 331), much less do they have the illusion that a pope can be forced to give an answer to their questions.
My impression is that the Four Cardinals, as much as they would gladly welcome an answer from the pope, are probably happy that, despite everything, they have managed to lay these questions on the table towards the day when, finally, it will be possible to get answers.
Meanwhile, they can certainly continue exercising their own episcopal office as 'teacher of the faith' (Canon 375) and propose answers to the DUBIA on their own authority. I think that these are men who are ready to accept derision and to suffer misunderstanding and a malevolent interpretation of their actions and motivations.
The rank of cardinal is not purely honorific, but it does carry grave responsibilities. And cardinals have privileges first of all because they have duties. The honors they receive derive precisely from the duties that weigh on their shoulders.
Among these duties is that of fraternally correcting the pope when he commits errors in governing the Church, as they did in 1813 when Pius VII signed the Treaty of Fontainebleau with Napoleon; or in 1934, when the Dean of Cardinals Gennaro Granito of Belmonte, admonished Pius XI, in the name of the Sacred College, for his 'inconsiderate' use of Holy See funds.
The pope is infallible only under certain conditions, and his acts of government and magisterium can contain errors that every faithful can and may question, a right that is therefore more incumbent on those who have the formal duty to advise the Sovereign Pontiff. [I haven't read any commentary on this question: Are not the DUBIA raised by AL matters of 'faith and morals', the very area in which papal infallibility applies to anything that a pope says ex cathedra?
- Is it that AL is not considered a pronouncement ex cathedra (from the chair, of Peter, in this case)?
- But does the document not fulfill the requirements for an ex cathedra statement, meaning 1) binding and infallible papal teachings 2) which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church 3) a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world?
- Does saying that it is not an act of magisterium take it out of the umbrella of papal infallibility? Strangely, not one of Bergoglio's defenders has invoked papal infallibility for AL, not even Cardinal Schoenborn who insists it is a formal act of magisterium. So maybe, even he does not believe it is a formal act of magisterium.
This is all academic, of course, because to most Catholics who still care about what a pope says and does, anything a pope says is instantly considered to be 'the' teaching of the Church, never mind if it contradicts everything that went before it.
Among the medieval canonists who examined the role of the College of Cardinals was Enrico da Susa, also called 'the Ostiense' because he was the cardinal bishop of Ostia. His work was the object of a recent study by Don Jürgen Jamin, entitled 'La cooperazione dei cardinali alle decisioni pontificie ratione fidei. Il pensiero di Enrico da Susa (Ostiense)' [Cooperation of cardinals in papal decisions based on faith and reason: The thoughts of Enrico da Susa) (Marcianum Press, Venice 2015).
Jamin recalls that Da Susa, commenting on pontifical decrees, did so in the hypothetical light of a pope falling into heresy. He brings up specifically the Ostiense's words for any pope: «Nec deficiat fides eius» (May your faith never fail you). According to the Bishop of Ostia,
The faith of Peter is not his faith exclusively, understood as a personal act, but rather the faith of the whole Church, of which the Prince of Apostles is the spokesman. Christ therefore prays for the faith of the whole Church in persona tantum Petri (in the person of Peter) because it is the faith of the Church, professed by Peter, which is never wrong
'et propterea ecclesia non presumitur posse errare' (and for this reason,the Church does not presume to be able to make a mistake» (op. cit. p. 223).
The Ostiense's thinking corresponds to that of all the great medieval canonists. The greatest contemporary specialist of these authors, Cardinal Alfonso Maria Stickler (1910-2007), underscored that
The prerogative of papal infallibility does not prevent the pope, as an individual, from sinning and thereby becoming personally heretical... In the case of the persistence and public profession of a specific heresy that has already been condemned as such by the Church, the pope becomes 'minor quolibet catholico'[less than any Catholic] (a common expression among canonsist) and ceases to be pope.
Thus the fact of a heretical pope does not affect papal infallibility because this term does not mean inherent infallibility in the person of the pope, but inherent by virtue of his office regarding a truth of the faith or an unchangeable principle of Christian life...
Canonists know to distinguish between the person of the pope and his office. If, consequently, they declare a pope deposed after he has revealed with certainty that he is obstinately heretical, they admit implicitly that by this personal fact, not only is papal infallibility not compromised, but on the contrary, it is affirmed and defended.
The cardinals who elect a pope do not have the authority to depose him but they can certify his renunciation of the office in case of voluntary resignation, or of obstinate and manifest heresy.
In traqic times for the Church, they must serve the Church, to the point of shedding their blood, if they have to, as is signified by the color of their garments, and the formula pronounced at the imposition of the biretta: "red as the sign of the rank of cardinal, which means that you must be ready to act with courage, up to the shedding of your blood, in order to increase the Christian faith, for the peace and tranquillity of the people of God, and for the freedom and dissemination of the Holy Roman Church".
Thus, we join the prayers of Cardinal Burke, in asking from the pope a response to the DUBIA which will be "faithful to tradition, in the uninterrupted apostolic line that goes back to our Lord, Jesus Christ".
Since it is Advent, the following context for the Four Cardinals' Five Dubia is most appropriate. John the Baptist who was beheaded by Herod for denouncing the king's adultery, along with Saints Thomas More and John Fisher who denounced Henry VIII's adultery, have been cited by many orthodox Catholic commentators as patron saints against what we might call, to say the least, the soft-on-adultery position of Bergoglio-Kasper and their minions. But the last time (perhaps the only time) Bergoglio referred to this saint was in a morning homilette in which he claimed that John when in prison had doubts whether Jesus was indeed the Messiah! John was conceived and born expressly to make way for the coming of Jesus, and now doubts whether he was the Messiah?....
Beheading of John the Baptist (cropped), Caravaggio, 1608, The two other panels, Salome with the head of John the Baptist, are by the same artist.
Did St. John the Baptist die in vain?
That’s what the four Cardinals are asking
by Brother Andre Marie
CATHOLICISM.ORG
December 13, 2016
Saint John the Baptist is our guide, along with Isaias the Prophet, through the season of Advent. He helps us to prepare for the coming of Christ, in His mystically renewed first coming in mercy (the mystery of the Nativity), in His second coming in majesty as the Just Judge, and in that spiritual third coming that Saint Bernard places between the other two.
The great Baptist was honored by Jesus Himself as “more than a prophet” (Matt. 11:9) because his role is to be the “angel” sent to prepare the way of the Messias.
Saint John appears on the scene as the last in a long line of Old Testament prophets. Like Isaias, Jeremias, and others, his speaking truth to power was rewarded with martyrdom. Isaias was sawn in half by order of King Manasses of Juda, while Jeremias was stoned to death by his fellow Jews in Egypt.
Such martyrdoms hint at one of the more unpleasant aspects of the Old Testament, namely, the frequent infidelities of the chosen people to their God — even to the point of falling at times into crass sins against the first commandment. In his book of meditations, The Challenge of Faith, Brother Francis touches on the mystery in these few words: "It is very difficult for us to understand why God should have favored them as much as He did, yet the Faith somehow survived in their midst, through a line of living traditions which was at times extremely thin."
Saint Paul warned both the Romans and the Corinthians not to be complacent or self-congratulatory when learning of such things; we Christians should take them as a cautionary lesson for ourselves not to be presumptuous. And, indeed, doES not the falling away of entire nations to heresy, schism, or apostasy show us that we, too — even in the grace of the New Testament — can witness those living traditions becoming comparatively thin at times?
At any rate, that thin line of living traditions of the Old Covenant reached Saint John, who was the one to point out Our Lord as the Lamb of God come to take away the sins of the world, and whose special vocation was to prepare the way for Christ.
The Gospel for the first Sunday of Advent concerns the Second Coming. It is there to remind us that our preparation is not only for Christ’s coming in meekness and humility at His Nativity, but also for when He will come in majesty and justice.
The Baptist does not appear in that Gospel, but meets us on the second Sunday, when Saint Matthew presents him already in prison and not long off from martyrdom. We see him sending two disciples to inquire of Jesus whether He is the Messias or not (for their benefit, not John’s).
This question Jesus only indirectly answers by explaining to them how the prophecy of Isaias is being fulfilled before their eyes by His miracles and preaching. It is on this occasion that Jesus says of John, after those disciples leave, that His cousin is a prophet and “greater than a prophet.”
On the third Sunday Saint John the Evangelist presents us with the Precursor’s baptizing mission and his replies to the official embassy of priests and Levites sent to ask him about his mission. They were wondering why John was baptizing if he was not the Christ or the Prophet or Elias. (Aside from the various Old Testament prefigurations of Baptism, there must have been a Jewish oral tradition, not explicit in the Hebrew Scriptures, that the Messias would come baptizing. Otherwise, the question makes little sense. This tradition was probably based on the prophecy of Ezechiel.)
In this same Gospel reading for the third Sunday, John mentions “one in the midst of you, whom you know not … the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to loose.”
On the fourth Sunday, after several verses naming historical personages and thus clearly establishing the time of these events (the emperor, governor, tetrarchs, and priests), we learn from Saint Luke that John’s baptism is “the baptism of penance for the remission of sins,” and that this — penance — has much to do with his preparing the way of the Lord and making straight His paths. The promise that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” seems itself to be predicated on penance for sin as a preparation for that salvation.
As a prophet who told the truth to the lowly and powerful alike, John was fearless. Utterly unhampered by human respect, he did not flinch to tell the Pharisees and Sadducees alike, “Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matt. 3:7).
But what really got him in trouble were the frank words to Herod Antipas: “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). Herodias, the adulterous wife of Philip (the tetrarch of Iturea and Herod’s brother), did not like this frank talk. As Jezabel did Elias, so Herodias wanted John dead. Enter her daughter, Salome the dancing girl, a little gluttony, a little drunkenness, a lot of lust, and Herod the weak adulterer becomes Herod the reluctant murderer. The prophet’s head ends up on the damsel’s dish.
And what does this have to do with the Church in our day?
Four Cardinals have asked the Holy Father for clarity on certain ambiguous passages of Amoris Laetitia because of the confusion these passages have caused regarding the Church’s teaching on marriage, on conscience, and on the objective nature of the moral act.
They have, in essence, professed that Saint John the Baptist did not die in vain for saying “It is not lawful…” to Herod. The Church’s moral teachings must not be dissolved in the name of a false mercy clothing itself in terms like “gradualism” and “accompaniment.”
The voice of the Forerunner can be heard in these eminent churchmen, and while they are not likely to lose their heads over it, it has been noted — however accurately — that they could lose their hats. They have certainly opened themselves up to attack in what has become an ecclesiastical environment some have called a “reign of terror” and others have compared to Soviet tyranny — as have the other cardinals, bishops, simple priests and professional scholars, who have put their careers and reputations on the line. Their fortitude is to be commended, and imitated.
An unyielding commitment to the Church’s inerrant deposit of the faith is not, primarily, a matter of controversy and intrigue, even if at times it is bound to become so. This commitment is first and foremost something each of us is called to preserve faithfully in our hearts, to live in our lives, and to radiate to those around us as the “good odour of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:15). [As I am not a Bible reader - though I do look up Scriptural passages cited for accuracy and for context - I had not come across this expression before. It seems strange that JMB has never used it, favoring rather 'the odor of the sheep', which has always seemed to me rather condescending to the sheep, i.e., the faithful. How much better it would be if he exhorted priests and bishops to radiate 'the odor of Christ' to everyone, in the peripheries or in the center, instead of simply urging them to take on 'the odor of the sheep'. Yet another example of his earthbound propensities.]
Each of us has a little John the Baptist in our soul, called the conscience. In imitation of the original John the Baptist, it must be true to God’s word no matter what the Herods of this world say or do. It must conform itself to that Catholic line of living traditions which will always remain unbroken, even if unpopular.
When our conscience, informed by the Church’s inerrant and infallibly transmitted tradition, says to us, “it is not lawful” on any matter, we are obliged to obey.
And to sever the conscience from the perennial moral teaching of the Church is to cut off its head, as Herod did John’s.
As we approach Christmas, a festival so rich in the imagery of light amid darkness, may God grant us to have both a correct and good conscience, one that will, like the Precursor in the desert, give testimony of the light of Christ, that we may not walk in darkness, but have the light of supernatural life (cf. Jn. 1:7, 8:12).
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 15/12/2016 15:00] |