The Remnant On The Gathering Storm

storm-clouds-south-dakota_23945_990x742

This is how the October synod looks like.

This is to alert you to a series of articles that are going to appear on the “Remnant” this week.

The first and the second part have been published already, other will follow. Note the second part has also been attached to the first, so it can be the first link will give you access to the whole series.

I have not read all of it (i have merely had the time to read part of the first), but what I have read is of stellar quality and worthy of being not only read, but kept in mind for future reference. What follows Below is just one example:

The origin of the pious prescription “no public criticism of the Pope” is mysterious, as it is certainly not to be found in the official teaching of the Church or the common opinion of theologians. Nor is there any sign of a theology of abject silence in the face of papal wrongs throughout the long history of public opposition—often fierce—to wayward Popes, beginning with Paul’s public rebuke of Peter for his scandalous refusal to eat with Gentiles: “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2:11).” To the facile objection that saints may criticize erring Popes, one might offer the facile reply that we ought to imitate the example of the saints. Nowhere, however, does the Church impose any “saints only” limitation on objecting publicly to what a Pope has said or done in public.

There were no known saints involved, for example, in the public opposition to John XXII (r. 1316-1334) when he insisted in a series of Sunday sermons that the blessed departed do not see God until after the General Judgment­—thus, among other dire consequences, nullifying the traditional teaching on the efficacy of prayers for the souls in Purgatory. Theologians at the University Paris concurred that, while the matter had never been defined as dogma, the Pope was in error, and they petitioned him to recant his opinion. The Pope ultimately did so, noting that he had never imposed his view upon the Church and that everyone had been free to disagree with him. John XXII’s more energetic opponents, including Cardinal Orsini and King Louis of Bavaria, called upon the cardinals to convoke a council to condemn him as a heretic. None of the papal critics in this affair stands condemned by the judgment of the Church.


You can do much worse than educate yourselves on this series of articles.

The only thing we can do in such times is to defend Catholicism as it always was, protecting the faithful as we can from Papolatry and ignorance.

Mundabor

Posted on March 13, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. Saints only were allowed to criticise Popes ? Isn’t it a contradictio in terminis ? No human being has ever been officially pronunced Saint when still living on Earth . Or ‘ times ‘a changing’ in canon law , taking in account that nowadays even councils are canonized , through a third party ? (sarc.off)

%d bloggers like this: