- IN APPENDIX: INTERVIEW WITH ARCHBISHOP OF CHICAGO -
The EXACT BOUNDARIES OF
THE POPE AS
A delicate problem is given by the conditions for which the Pope can enter the industry without being infallible doctrinal. It is then the case in which he expresses himself as a private doctor or as simple theologian. Here he can not avail themselves of the charism of Peter, but what he says depends only on its human wisdom, although founded on faith. In this field he can formulate opinions or reach scientific certainty, but it can also err, is intende, theologically, but not in faith, because it is protected by the charisma of Peter.
On the importance and meaning to be given to interventions, teachings, the claims and statements of the Supreme Pontiff Francis, you give today considerable dissension in the Catholic or non-Catholics among themselves which, as is known, are frequent and very diverse in form and content, addressed to the public and individuals more different, Catholics and non-Catholics, making use of the media more diverse, fruits of modern technology, unusual compared to the uses of previous Popes.
Many enthusiasts of Pope Francis, take everything he says with fanaticism or pretend membership, without critical scrutiny, only to do as they like or exploiting what he says the use of dolphins, especially if it satisfies their cravings and their ambitions. Other, attached to the style of previous Popes, follow or, you could say, pedinano step behind him every day up with sharp-eyed gaze and gunpoint, suspected he was an invalid Pope, to catch him at his word before unusual, seeing in it dull dark plots Masonic conspiracy or secret heresies Lutheran, ideas still suffering from that Council criptoereticale this was to say to them that the Second Vatican Council. They ignore that, as I will mention later, the Pope does not teach the truth of faith, that is, how do you say, it is not “infallible” or only when it proclaims solemnly defines or by itself or through a council a new dogma, but, albeit at lower grades and less authoritative, whenever he instructs us as teacher of the faith.
The essential condition for the value of these lower levels is that the Pope teaches the Word of God, the doctrine and the mystery of Christ and the Church, the data revealed (Scripture and Tradition), the sacraments, Christian virtues, the way of the Gospel and salvation, truths or dogmas of faith, the articles of the Creed, you express how you want to express, not interested. It does not affect either the circumstances, the manner and the means of these communications, from the encyclical, the pastoral letter, to the Motu Proprio, General Audience, the homily of the Mass, to speech, the journalistic interview or phone call. The important thing is that it is these materials, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly.
A sensitive issue, and is the subject of this article, is given by the conditions for which the Pope can enter the industry without being infallible doctrinal. It is then the case in which he expresses himself as a private doctor or as simple theologian. Here he can not avail themselves of the charism of Peter, but what he says depends only on its human wisdom, although founded on faith. In this field he can formulate opinions or reach scientific certainty, but it can also err, is intende, theologically, but not in faith, because it is protected by the charisma of Peter.
In the past, the Popes have left us documents that were not an expression of the charism of Peter. If before climbing became Pope Pius II, Enea Silvio Piccolomini, like other popes, had published their writings, once elected Popes their teaching was not usually that expression of their office to the Successors of Peter and teachers of the faith. They wanted to erase the human aspect of their thinking and not be anything but tramiti of Gospel.
This enclose all its activities of thought and teaching within the limits of officialdom was probably motivated by the fear of the past Popes in the manifestation of their personal ideas could be exchanged for papal teaching, thing to the truth may actually happen in believers not sufficiently prepared to distinguish theological thought and teaching of faith, ie the Pope Francis.
Otherwise instead, with the last century, namely with St. John Paul II, begins with the use of the Pope is not limited to his papal office, but also produces literary or theological in a purely human. From this point of view is remarkable is the Christological trilogy of Benedict XVI, about which he himself invited scholars to discuss with him. A clear sign that he did not intend to show up with these writings as universal doctor and infallible faith, but also simply and modestly, as theologian among theologians, although he is great theologian.
I believe that this change in the activity Intellectual Popes was motivated by the fact that today the Catholic cultural education is more capable of a time to clarify the common faithful the difference between the Pope as the Pope and the Pope as a private doctor, However, although the current Pope, with the variety and the unusual appearance of his numerous and frequent, seriously put to the test those who want to distinguish him Simone - namely Jorge Mario Bergoglio - manifesting their ideas sometimes questionable, by Peter infallible teacher of the faith.
Today is more than ever urgent problem of how we can distinguish with certainty, adequate and clear teaching of a Pope as Pope from a speech or written theological or literary occasional, impromptu or extemporaneous. The distinction is very important, as it is clear that while the word of Peter is always true and binding, what he thinks or says Simone, ie man Bergoglio, although always worthy of respect, it is said that it is always indisputable, unique and necessary for salvation. In this regard,, we can respond first that the Pope himself is careful Francesco usually let us understand manifesting his intentions and depending on the circumstances. Since its ordinary office is Petrine, ordinarily we have to think that what he expresses is manifestation of that office, especially when it comes to those matters of faith to which I alluded above. But the level of authority of his teaching we can deduce from its own content and the manner of expressing them. There are in fact known to theological doctrines and not magisterial, doctrines, if we find on the mouth or in the writings of the Pope, it will be obvious that express his thought simply as a private doctor.
We for example that the Pope gave Mary the title of “Redemptrix” or that would support with St. Augustine that damned outnumbers the beati or the Shroud is truly the imprint of the body of Christ or the Virgin Mary appears really to Medjugorje or that Judas is in hell or the resurrection there will be animals or that the angels have been subjected by God at the beginning of the world to a loyalty test or the transfer of Jews from the Red Sea was simply a miraculous phenomenon favourable tide or that Adam and Eve expelled from paradise had a Simian appearance or even embryos are baptized to Christ or that there were things that Christ did not know or that the Antichrist is a single person or two “witnesses” Revelation speaks of them are the Saints Peter and Paul, and so on. All these assumptions are clearly compatible with the data of faith. It is certainly respectable doctrines and probable, but which do not correspond in themselves to real truth of faith, because you can not find them directly neither in Scripture nor in Tradition. The sources of Revelation could endorse but also not endorse. Currently it is not possible to know for sure and that is why the papal Magisterium as such is not pronounced.
These doctrines, however, thanks to a further theological study, could buy a tomorrow such a degree of probability, certainty as to become. For this, it is entirely legitimate to support them with all due modesty, and it is equally legitimate to disagree with them with due prudence, waiting for a possible clarification. In this case, the debate and the confrontation between opposing opinions, conducted with mutual respect and with scientific methods, helps to discover the truth, But maybe that will never be discovered until the Parousia.
It can indeed happen that a theological thesis is well demonstrated so well accepted by the Church, enough to rise to the level of dogma of faith defined, as was the case for the thesis Thomistic soul only the form of the body in the Council of the Viennes 1312 or immortality of the soul in the Fifth Lateran Council of 1513.
Nothing and no one will restrict the Pope, as a private doctor, to fit into this research and participate in the discussion with other theologians on an equal footing and in his peril, advancing his own way of seeing things and letting contest if its arguments prove to be wrong or questionable.
It may also happen that his opinion becomes particularly authoritative and persuasive among theologians, but opinion remains; whereby, though expressed by Pope, absolutely can not rise to the level of official papal teaching and infallible, Whether dogma defined or undefined.
Note that throughout history the faithful have always gone subject to a double risk to the ideas expressed by the Pope. Or that of understating and diminish or restrict the authority, under various pretexts, or on the contrary the risk of that fanaticism and the subjection supine, indiscreet, dimly lit and also affected, that takes as indisputable also the positions of the Pope as a private doctor.
Among the first to recent times there are those that restrict the notes infallibility of papal teaching the very special and very rare conditions laid down by the First Vatican Council, waves feel authorized to deny the infallibility and then at least to suspect forgery or falsification of the doctrines of Vatican II, that would be only their second “pastoral”, as well as all the teachings and actions of the post-conciliar Popes at any level or in any form, not clearly marked by the characteristics.
They believe in the immutability of the dogma; but as the infallibility of the Pope and the Council, reject the aforementioned Instruction of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, addition to the Apostolic Letter To defend the faith St. John Paul II 1998, in which you teach, stating the doctrine of Vatican I, that the Magisterium of the Church (Pope or Council), below infallibility outstanding and solemnly defined, is expressed according to two other lower grades of authority, about which the Catholic Church says it is certain that the true authentically, definitely, irreformabilmente and immutably. Now, the level of authority of the conciliar doctrine and teaching of the Popes subsequent to the current, belongs to one of these two levels.
Others, is a case of our time, infected gnoseologies relativist, soggettiviste the evoluzioniste, do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, whereby, if they think that the Pope is in conflict or break with traditional doctrines previously defined or, and the new, as well as the means, to their liking, no qualms to enhance a Pope Francis, which eventually updated, a pope “revolutionary”, which eventually embraced “modernity”, a Pope who knows “converse” with all.
From these facts we understand how easy it is for the faithful and it is also possible for a theologian imprudent, this is a conservative or a liberal, Judging is not based on objective criteria, but with your taste, for you deny the infallibility or the truth to papal doctrines that do not like, although absolutely true; and conversely are considered indisputable or “Advanced” or even “Revolutionary” ideas of the Pope, fraintese e times digerite, that the Pope expressed maybe passing and without the intention to teach the truths of faith or just to express an opinion or a personal impression.
They, the reader will have already realized that they are the modernists, Actually, soaked historicism, do not believe in the infallibility papal, because they do not believe the immutability of truth. But that does not stop them as they were to make an absolute dogma certain statements of Pope purely contingent and occasional, however, interpreted as if the Pope would give space to the modernist ideas.
In fact, the historicist, as for example the Hegelian, believes in his own way in the absolute, just that for him the absolute non transcends history in metaphysical un'immutabilità, but it is nothing but the absolutization of the historical event that interests him. So for example, for the School of Bologna, the doctrines of the Council do not refer to anything immutable and supra, but represent the epochal event, revolutionary, eschatological and prophetic of the present time. In this sense, for the historicist, the Absolute itself becomes with the historical development. Nothing remains, nothing remains, but everything evolves in history, as history and as Absolute in history. No story without Absolute, but also nothing Absolute no history.
Modernists have no respect for the Pope as teacher of the faith, that tend to solve all his teachings in simple theological opinions, they then allow time to accommodate, now to challenge, how they like it, as if they were those of any other theologian. And that is because, as already pointed out sharply in the St. Pius X Pascendi Dominici Gregis, they are “fenomenisti”, which replace the appearance being, what seems to what is. For them no harm then certainties objective, universal and immutable, but everything is debatable, changeable dependent on time, from places and points of view.
Modernists pretend disciples and admirers of the Pope for some of his sentence or gesture that would seem to meet them. And unfortunately, the Pope does not currently seem to do much to dispel this interpretation and take the distances from these false friends. But the misunderstanding can not last forever. Soon the Pope, tired of their approaches increasingly prying, will speak in a voice frank and clear. There is a fear that at this point they pretended admiration will be turned into hatred. This about-face of the rest will be in line with their own moral principles chameleon. It is the idea that the Pope could run danger to his own life. Thus, apparently, succeeded in killing pain Pope John Paul I.
If it instead of other topics, practical or moral, starting with the most important acts of the papal government, liturgical directives, the provisions pastoral, legal, administrative or disciplinary, Here the Pope is fallible and may even fail to virtue, courage, charity and prudence. But it is always a duty, if it is deemed useful or necessary, play a critical polite, modest and respectful, as children to a father.
We observe at this point that, as it emerges from the ducts studies Antonio Livi to which reference, theology is a science, as such, accompanies opinion. For this, the Pope as a private doctor, can reach conclusions theological scientific, that is proven and demonstrated, as may be limited to the field dell'opinabile, the likely, hypothetical, uncertain.
Science gives us the evidence mediated, riconducile to the first principles of reason, common sense or faith; irrefutably shows us what is true. The opinion, instead, without being able to redo those principles, but based only on appearance (glory, Doxa), advancing arguments likely or, Phys, “dialectical”, namely that further research is necessary to check with. In fact, they have only the appearance of the true and therefore the opinion does not reach certain conclusions, but only probable.
Science is the appearance or manifestation (phenomenon fainòmenon) mediated the true. The opinion (glory) instead it gives what seems true (seems). For further inquiry you can discover or that it is true or it is false. The opinion apparently stops. Only science makes us distinguish with certainty the true from the false.
Science is a, or because something is or is not; can not coexist two sciences opposed about the same thing. The views however are many and can legitimately coexist and oppose each other, because from opposition is supposed not to know what is the real one, but both have the appearance of truth.
By principles of faith is possible to obtain the opinion in theology or science: opinion, if the theologian can not make a rigorous deduction; the scientific conclusion, instead, if he can make that deduction. A theologian Pope can be in one as in the other direction. The infallibility of his charisma as a teacher of faith helps him for nothing in these investigations and in these conclusions, remittances that are totally contrary to his human wisdom, his scientific and logical rigor of his method.
Pope Francis is not an academic theologian, as it was Benedict XVI, he left us as a private theologian precious books of Christology, to which I have already mentioned. Pope Francis instead is a theologian kerygmatic, a tireless preacher of the God Incarnate, Jesus Christ and his Spirit, feeding his intellectual life, his heart, his passion of an apostle and pastor, prosthesis to salvation of all men. He reminds me of my Founder Order, St. Dominic of Guzman, of which it was said that “or talking to God or God”.
Even Pope Francis, as for the previous Popes, must be able to discern the time of his personal approach to Christ, his theological sensitivity, his private devotion, his human standpoint particular - we can also accept or not accept, we can discuss freely or deepening of our choice - the teacher of the faith, by the pastor and doctor of the Church Universal, Vicar of Christ, Peter's Successor, Witness to the Word of God, Scripture and Tradition, that infallibly assisted by the Holy Spirit, preaches officially and publicly for Christ's mandate calling all men to salvation.
Fontanellato, 23 November 2014
RETIRED ARCHBISHOP OF CHICAGO:
"THE HOLY FATHER HAS CREATED THE EXPECTATIONS THAT CAN NOT MEET"
After a couple of days of publication of this article of Father John Cavalcoli, was published an interview with Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago, recently stepped down as chair of the archdiocese for serious health reasons; the cardinal, ill with cancer, is in fact to live the culminating phase of his illness.
The full original article is available WHO
Below,, comes from the famous blog by Sandro Magister, the Italian translation of the interview of the Cardinal that we felt should be included in the appendix to this our article.
di Francis George, own
I can understand the anxiety of some people. At first glance not close, you may seem that Francis questions the doctrinal statements. But if you look back, especially when you listen to his homilies, see that it is not so. Very often, when he says certain things, its intention is to enter the pastoral context of someone who is taken, as it were, in a trap. Perhaps this expresses his sympathy in a way that causes people to wonder if he still supports the doctrine. I have no reason to believe it does,. […]
This raises the question: Francis does not explain why these things himself? Why is it necessary that the apologists to bear the weight of having to do every time a good face? He realizes the consequences of some of his statements, or even of some of its actions? He realizes the repercussions? Maybe not. I do not know if he is aware of all the consequences of his words and gestures of those who raise such doubts in people's minds.
This is one of the things I'd like to have the opportunity to ask, if I happen to be there for him: “Do you realize what just happened with that phrase 'Who am I to judge?’, of how it was used and abused?”. It was really abused, because he was talking about the situation of someone who had already asked for mercy and received absolution, someone he knew well. It's a completely different thing from talking to someone who claims to be approved without asking forgiveness. You constantly abused, that sentence.
Raised expectations around him that he can not possibly meet. This is what worries me. At a certain point, those who have painted him as a pawn in their scenarios on the changes in the Church will find that he is not what we believe. That does not go in that direction. And then maybe you will become the target not only of a disappointment, but also an opposition that could be detrimental to the effectiveness of his teaching. […]
Personally, I find it interesting that this pope cites that novel: “Master of the World”. It's something that I would like to ask: “How do you put together what she does with what she says is the hermeneutic interpretation of his ministry, that is, this eschatological vision that the Antichrist is among us? Is that what you think?”. I'd like to ask this question to the Holy Father. In a way, This could perhaps explain why he seems to have such a hurry. […] What do you think the Pope about the end of time? […]
I do not know him well before his election. I knew him through the Brazilian bishops, who knew him more, and to them I asked many questions. […] Have not visited him since he was elected. […] Pope Francis did not know enough. Certainly respect him as pope, but I still lack an understanding of what it intends to do.
translation by Sandro Magister [see which]