 07/08/2017 03:55 |
|
| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 31.498
Post: 13.586 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
August 6, 2017
PewSitter
Canon212.com
C212's Frank Walker made a banner headline of the ff item from a blog called Dymphna's Road, whose writer does make a very good point:
José Galat Noumer is 88 years old and apparently he's been excommunicated. How can it be that criticizing the pope gets someone excommunicated?
- Fr. James Martin is a Catholic in good standing.
- Cardinal Marx is a Catholic in good standing.
- Mons. Vincenzo Paglia is a Catholic in good standing.
- The founder of the Legionaries of Christ [Marcial Maciel] was officially a Catholic in good standing for most of his life. Although the truth about his wicked life became too hard to hide by the time he took to his deathbed, he was never excommunicated.
- Fr. Hans Kung is a Catholic in good standing.
You can be an open sinner and be petted and praised at the Vatican with no fear of any remote possibility of excommunication. You can be a politician and vote for abortion and be a Catholic in good standing.
Ted Kennedy got the funeral of a saint and when Joe Biden rings his life's curtain down his bishop will give the family the cathedral for his funeral if they should so desire.
So how is it that out of all the famous sinners in the world this particular very old man who is obviously closer to the end of his life than the start of it and who founded one of the biggest Catholic TV channels in the world get excommunicated?
This doesn't seem like a sad judgment on an obstinate sinner. It seems like malice. It seems like vengeance. It seems like a mafioso warning to the rest of the "neighborhood" to shut up or else.
I ought to have done this days ago when the Galat excommunication first made the news. The Colombian bishops said they were excommunicating him for heresy and schism because he questions the legitimacy of Bergoglio as pope. But so have quite a few Catholics more prominent than Galat – to mention one, Antonio Socci, who got a handwritten note from this pope thanking him for his criticism! Of course, the Colombian bishops are just brown-nosing (excuse the term) Bergoglio on the eve of his visit to Columbia by being more Bergoglian than he is.
The pope could have nipped all this in the bud if he had simply called the Colombian bishops to tell them, "Stop your nonsense – how exactly do you intend to prove heresy and schism? The one excommunicable offense against a pope is physical violence against him, and Galat has been nowhere near me, nor has anyone assaulted me physically at all". After which, he should have called Prof. Galat himself – they both speak Spanish, after all - thanking him for his criticism, as he did with Socci , and assuring him of his prayers.
He can't have been too busy to pay attention! After all, Galat runs one of the most watched Catholic TV channels in Latin America. Maybe he finds the Colombian bishops' summary deed commendable, no matter how irregular.
As we all know from the ongoing debates of the past four years, heresy is very difficult to prove - the technical niceties involved are too easy to circumvent for careful wannabe heretics, as Bergoglio himself has been most careful. (And Prof. Galat, who is far from being a dunce, probably never even thought that voicing his opinion about Bergoglio's legitimacy as pope could constitute heresy.)
And the Colombian bishops use the canon law definition of schism in accusing Galat of this offense, namely, "rejecting the authority and jurisdiction of the pope as head of the Church", not as we commonly think of it, as a breaking away from the Church by a group deciding to be on their own, as all the schismatics in history have done. The FSSPX avoided being formally in schism because although they disobeyed John Paul II on the specific matter of consecrating their own bishops over his objection, they have continued to recognize the authority of the popes.
As for me, I feel that the worst part about being anti-Bergoglio is that he is the legitimate pope and therefore one cannot question his authority and jurisdiction as pope, though we can condemn what he says and does that the Vicar of Christ would not and should not say and do, things that are really and truly anti-Catholic.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 08/08/2017 00:24] |
| |
|
| |
|
|