Dogmatic Fact or Fancy III

JMJ

Recently, I've been engaged in a 'dogmatic fact' discussion / argument and a thought occurred to me.
Based on what reading I had done, I had concluded that the dogmatic fact of who is Pope was fixed in time - meaning that acceptance of the Pope at the time of election provided infallible surety that the election was valid and that indeed the elected Cardinal/Bishop was Pope at that moment.

Then I realized that some people believed that the dogmatic fact meant they were always Pope. At the time I thought they meant that the understanding of the doctrine was that the one time recognition made that person infallibly the Pope until he either abdicated or died.

A light went on this morning.

Does the continual acceptance of the Pope by the hierarchy continually 'refresh' the dogmatic fact - meaning we can be certain that the Pope is'still' Pope etc?

I asked a friend (a real theologian) and he pointed out that the Pope is already elected.

The recognition of the Bishops just allows us to know with certainty who is the elected Pope. This is particularly important in the situation when the is confusion of who is the lawfully elected Pope.

So after election the reigning Pope can only be removed by:

1. Death
2. Abdication
3. Juridical process of the authority of the Church (Cardinals / Bishops)

So the dogmatic fact is established at a point in time - acknowledging who IS the successor of Peter (Pope Francis in case there is any doubt caused by the 'conclavist' pretenders).

P^3

Comments

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

+ JMJ I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts. After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Auctorem Fidei

Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo? Revision: Feb 11, 2013 On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Tradicat

Search This Blog