I am very thankful to Fr H who manages somehow, almost every day in every way, to hammer away at what a pope can do and cannot do...
not that it will be read, much less heeded at all, by the man who ought to profit most from such lessons, but still a wider public will
become more aware of the limitations to papal power and not be bamboozled by Bergoglio's artifices..
A Pope and the liturgy:
'Non potest' - You can't!
Nov. 6, 2017
Following on from my post about possible dangers to sound Liturgy arising from PF's own personal liturgical fads and his
dirigiste instincts, I want to draw to the attention of readers two loci of Magisterial status.
(I presume that readers are already familiar with what the then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in
The Spirit of the Liturgy, when
he criticised the hyperpapalism which, after Vatican II, played on an erroneous assumption that the pope can do anything. This, of course, could be argued to be non-Magisterial.)
The two places that I wish, very briefly, to draw to your attention are full exercises of a Papal Magisterium.
(1) In the Letter to the Bishops which accompanied
Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI wrote "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden forbidden". Notice the expression 'cannot'. The learned pontiff says, not "should not be";
he says "cannot be".
(2) I suspect Ratzinger of being responsible for drafting paragraph 1125 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, although, of course, it was promulgated with the force of an Apostolic Constitution in 1992 by Pope St John Paul II.
The second sentence of this paragraph begins with the phrase
"Ipsa auctoritas Ecclesiae suprema [Even the supreme authority of the Church itself]". This is a phrase commonly used, especially at Vatican II, of the Pope himself (although surely it would also apply to an Ecumenical Council). Next comes
"non potest [is not able]". I ask you to notice that we do not have "
non licet" ["he is not permitted"], nor do we have a jussive subjunctive ["he shouldn't do it"].
What is being excluded is being excluded as an impossibility. Just as S John Paul II excluded the sacerdotal ordination of women as an impossibility (
nullam facultatem habere)(never to have that faculty).
The sentence in the Catechism continues: "
(non potest) liturgiam ad placitum commutare suum (cannot change the Liturgy in accordance with his own fad)
sed solummodo in oboedientia fidei et in religiosa mysterii liturgiae observantia (but only in the obedience of the Faith and in the religious observance of the mystery of the Liturgy)."
In other words, if a pope were to attempt to change the Liturgy in accordance with his personal fads, he would be acting
ultra vires. And so his attempt would be null.
I suspect we would have to go back to the principled and glorious teaching of Vatican I (
Pastor aeternus) to find as clear and forthright a Magisterial statement of what a pope is not competent to do!
[Unfortunately, all these arguments are moot because, like the Muslim Allah, Bergoglio's will is bound to be arbitrary, i.e., as it pleases him for the moment, but nonetheless he expects it to be binding on everyone and recognized by everyone. And his will, in general, is: "Ignore, discard or destroy anything about the Roman Catholic Church that is not in the spirit of Vatican-II, which I happen to embody and express par excellence!"]
Finally, Vatican issues a denial:
‘Ecumenical Mass’ rumours are ‘utterly false’
Mons Roche of CDW and Vatican spokesman Greg Burke have both denied it
by Nick Hallett
Monday, 6 Nov 2017
The Vatican has denied rumours that a secret commission is creating an ‘ecumenical Mass’ that would allow joint Communion between Catholics and Protestants.
Greg Burke, director of the Holy See press office, and Archbishop Arthur Roche, the second highest-ranking official in the Congregation for Divine Worship, both strongly denied the reports after days of speculation.
Archbishop Roche told journalist Christopher Lamb that the rumours were “utterly false”, while Mr Burke said they were “simply not true”.
The denials came after a report by Marco Tosatti in
First Things quoted anonymous sources who said a commission was looking at creating an “ecumenical Mass”. Tosatti added that Cardinal Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, had not been informed of the plans.
Last week, [ITthe Australian asked the Vatican about the rumours but did not receive a response. The paper added that the Mass would supposedly include prayers, readings from scripture and a common Communion, but the Catholic and Protestant clergy would pray the words of consecration silently.
The rumours also prompted German Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki to say such a Mass would be theologically impossible. An ecumenical Mass would have “no basis”, he said, because Catholics and Protestants “do not agree on the central issues”.
On Friday, Andrea Grillo, who had been named as one of the people on the commission, denied any involvement. He told the Catholic Herald: “Regarding the ‘rumours’, I wish to insist that I am not part of any Vatican commission. I teach, study and publish: these are my only activities.”
I wish I could sincerely say 'Deo gratias!" for this newsbit, but these days, I do not trust a Vatican denial.
November 6, 2017 headlines
Canon212.com
http://www.xt3.com/library/view.php?id=22278
Today, Fr. H starts a new series on the double standards that are among the hallmarks of this ueber-ypocritical pontificate:
Double Standards (1):
Pope Francis answers Dubium!!!
7 November 2017
Pope Francis has replied to a plea for an answer to a question, and did so within SIX WEEKS!!
A well-known theologian has commented with immense joy, pointing out how wonderful it is
"that Francis answered at all and did not let my appeal fall on deaf ears";
"that he replied himself and not via his private secretary or the secretary of state";
"that he clearly read the appeal most attentively";
"that he is highly appreciative".
Who is the theologian? Hans Kueng. What was his appeal? That PF would allow free discussion concerning the doctrine of papal infallibility, which Kueng has spent a lot of his life attacking.
Kueng wrote to PF on March 9 2016; his ecstatic press statement describing PF's reply was released to The Tablet on April 27, 2016.
[Maybe it was reported at the time but I do not recall reading anything about it - or maybe, I just tend to roll my eyes and look elsewhere when Kueng's name is brought up.]
Papal Infallibility is a dogma solemnly defined by an Ecumenical Council, Vatican I, in 1870. Its teaching included anathemas against those who denied the doctrine.
Kueng says that PF "set no restrictions. He has thus responded to my request to give room to a free discussion on the dogma of infallibility. I think it is now imperative to use this new freedom ..." etc. etc..
This gripping news broke some weeks before the recent spate of Internet papers by court theologians arguing that documents like Amoris laetitia require a more obsequious acceptance from the theological community than they have in some quarters received.
So ... assuming that Kueng has not been telling naughty porkies ... on the one hand, obsequious submission is required; on the other, the whole fundamental substructure of the Petrine Ministry is up for grabs!!
You couldn't make it up, could you?
Double standards (2), (3), and (4) are due to follow.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 07/11/2017 15:01]