Synodal Way: This Is the Reason Why the Germans Are So Bold
The draft-document Evangelium praedicate on a Curia reform could back the German Synod as “binding,” Ed Condon writes (CatholicNewsAgency.com, January 31). The document refers to a “primary responsibility …More
The draft-document Evangelium praedicate on a Curia reform could back the German Synod as “binding,” Ed Condon writes (CatholicNewsAgency.com, January 31).
The document refers to a “primary responsibility” of diocesan bishops and national bishops’ conferences, specifically speaking of a “genuine doctrinal authority” of national bishops’ conferences, which would turn the Francis Church into a branch of Anglicanism.
Condon has learned that this “blueprint for federalism” was heavily influenced by Munich Cardinal Marx.
If the draft remains unaltered, "it would validate" the German Suicidal Way, Condon adds.
Picture: © Mazur, CC BY-SA, #newsSzaxohagxl
The document refers to a “primary responsibility” of diocesan bishops and national bishops’ conferences, specifically speaking of a “genuine doctrinal authority” of national bishops’ conferences, which would turn the Francis Church into a branch of Anglicanism.
Condon has learned that this “blueprint for federalism” was heavily influenced by Munich Cardinal Marx.
If the draft remains unaltered, "it would validate" the German Suicidal Way, Condon adds.
Picture: © Mazur, CC BY-SA, #newsSzaxohagxl
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Pope Emeritus Benedict is not "the true pope" @Thors Catholic Hammer He resigned. Every "proof" you've given from "he only resigned the office" to "he still wears the papal ring" has been outed as a lie.
Repeating your nonsense doesn't prove it true. The same applies for "he's under house arrest." YOU need to prove your claim, especially given your long track-record of documented falsehoods.More
Pope Emeritus Benedict is not "the true pope" @Thors Catholic Hammer He resigned. Every "proof" you've given from "he only resigned the office" to "he still wears the papal ring" has been outed as a lie.
Repeating your nonsense doesn't prove it true. The same applies for "he's under house arrest." YOU need to prove your claim, especially given your long track-record of documented falsehoods.
Repeating your nonsense doesn't prove it true. The same applies for "he's under house arrest." YOU need to prove your claim, especially given your long track-record of documented falsehoods.
Thors Catholic Hammer
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@ @Ultraviolet
You are failing again to understand that a papal abdication is a juridical act and must be clear.
‘I quit” and then leaves the job is not legally adequate to somebody in a position of supreme spiritual authority.
He must declare accurately using the word prescribed ie munus what it is that he is quitting.
Benedict officially said he was only quitting the ministerium.
They are …More
@ @Ultraviolet
You are failing again to understand that a papal abdication is a juridical act and must be clear.
‘I quit” and then leaves the job is not legally adequate to somebody in a position of supreme spiritual authority.
He must declare accurately using the word prescribed ie munus what it is that he is quitting.
Benedict officially said he was only quitting the ministerium.
They are different and upon an issue so critical it was and remains necessary for Pope Benedict to get it right.
He did,nt and this of course may have been deliberate.
It is unnatural in the extreme that anybody anywhere resigning from a position of such exceptional importance would behave as Benedict has.
But the anti catholic cardinals loved it and like the gaderene swine rushed into a premature illegal conclave without verifying legally what Benedict had actually done.
You are failing again to understand that a papal abdication is a juridical act and must be clear.
‘I quit” and then leaves the job is not legally adequate to somebody in a position of supreme spiritual authority.
He must declare accurately using the word prescribed ie munus what it is that he is quitting.
Benedict officially said he was only quitting the ministerium.
They are different and upon an issue so critical it was and remains necessary for Pope Benedict to get it right.
He did,nt and this of course may have been deliberate.
It is unnatural in the extreme that anybody anywhere resigning from a position of such exceptional importance would behave as Benedict has.
But the anti catholic cardinals loved it and like the gaderene swine rushed into a premature illegal conclave without verifying legally what Benedict had actually done.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"You are failing again to understand that a papal abdication is a juridical act and must be clear."
I understand it perfectly. YOU refuse to recognize that Benedict XVI's resignation doesn't have to meet YOUR standards.
‘I quit"” and then leaves the job is not legally adequate to somebody in a position of supreme spiritual authority.
YOUR interpretation of what is "legally adequate" is not supported …More
"You are failing again to understand that a papal abdication is a juridical act and must be clear."
I understand it perfectly. YOU refuse to recognize that Benedict XVI's resignation doesn't have to meet YOUR standards.
‘I quit"” and then leaves the job is not legally adequate to somebody in a position of supreme spiritual authority.
YOUR interpretation of what is "legally adequate" is not supported by Canon Law.
Canon law requires two criteria for a valid resignation. 1.) it must be freely given and 2.) properly manifested. Period.
Everything else is you inventing new extra-Canonical requirements because you just can't accept that he DID resign.
"He must declare accurately using the word prescribed ie munus what it is that he is quitting."
The word "munus" is not prescribed by the Canon Law.
Parrotting Fra. Bugnolo doesn't change that. You're not a skilled enough debator to appreciate the cleverness of his argument. He derived a requirement that isn't explicitly stated and then proceeded to build his argument as though it had been.
"Benedict officially said he was only quitting the ministerium."
Ah. Now that's you repeating your own argument for a change. Except you're wrong and keep repeating the same old lie.
Nowhere has Benedict XVI qualified his resignation with "only".
His last general audience as pope contradicts this. His own exasperated comments a year later contradicts this.
"They are different and upon an issue so critical it was and remains necessary for Pope Benedict to get it right."
There is nothing Pope Emeritus Benedict will EVER say "to get it right" to meet your delusional standards.
You don't want to accept his resignation just like you don't want to accept communion on the tongue.
You will always come back with another round of "but he STILL didn't specifically say/ describe/ mention (whatever, whatever, whatever)".
His resignation was clear. He resigned "in such a way" a new Pope must be chosen.
Whatever is required for that to happen must be included to fit his definition of how he resigned.
"He did,nt and this of course may have been deliberate."
He did. That's why his printed resignation was so carefully worded to require a new Pope to be chosen. Whatever is legally necessary for that to happen MUST be included to fulfill Benedict's definition .
"It is unnatural in the extreme that anybody anywhere resigning from a position of such exceptional importance would behave as Benedict has."
No, that's just you arguing from ignorance. Just because YOU think Benedict's actions are "unnatural" doesn't make them so.
"a premature illegal conclave without verifying legally what Benedict had actually done."
That's an assumption on your part.
You assume they didn't check Canon law. Fairly safe to say they did, and proven by the fact such hard-line opponents to Francis' reforms aren't contesting the validity of Francis' papacy.
I understand it perfectly. YOU refuse to recognize that Benedict XVI's resignation doesn't have to meet YOUR standards.
‘I quit"” and then leaves the job is not legally adequate to somebody in a position of supreme spiritual authority.
YOUR interpretation of what is "legally adequate" is not supported by Canon Law.
Canon law requires two criteria for a valid resignation. 1.) it must be freely given and 2.) properly manifested. Period.
Everything else is you inventing new extra-Canonical requirements because you just can't accept that he DID resign.
"He must declare accurately using the word prescribed ie munus what it is that he is quitting."
The word "munus" is not prescribed by the Canon Law.
Parrotting Fra. Bugnolo doesn't change that. You're not a skilled enough debator to appreciate the cleverness of his argument. He derived a requirement that isn't explicitly stated and then proceeded to build his argument as though it had been.
"Benedict officially said he was only quitting the ministerium."
Ah. Now that's you repeating your own argument for a change. Except you're wrong and keep repeating the same old lie.
Nowhere has Benedict XVI qualified his resignation with "only".
His last general audience as pope contradicts this. His own exasperated comments a year later contradicts this.
"They are different and upon an issue so critical it was and remains necessary for Pope Benedict to get it right."
There is nothing Pope Emeritus Benedict will EVER say "to get it right" to meet your delusional standards.
You don't want to accept his resignation just like you don't want to accept communion on the tongue.
You will always come back with another round of "but he STILL didn't specifically say/ describe/ mention (whatever, whatever, whatever)".
His resignation was clear. He resigned "in such a way" a new Pope must be chosen.
Whatever is required for that to happen must be included to fit his definition of how he resigned.
"He did,nt and this of course may have been deliberate."
He did. That's why his printed resignation was so carefully worded to require a new Pope to be chosen. Whatever is legally necessary for that to happen MUST be included to fulfill Benedict's definition .
"It is unnatural in the extreme that anybody anywhere resigning from a position of such exceptional importance would behave as Benedict has."
No, that's just you arguing from ignorance. Just because YOU think Benedict's actions are "unnatural" doesn't make them so.
"a premature illegal conclave without verifying legally what Benedict had actually done."
That's an assumption on your part.
You assume they didn't check Canon law. Fairly safe to say they did, and proven by the fact such hard-line opponents to Francis' reforms aren't contesting the validity of Francis' papacy.