No pope can change Church dogma.
"Dogma" is the
Greek for doctrine, and refers to a must-be-held teaching. You cannot change
'em. No pope (or anyone else) has the right or power or authority to do so.
Not
only do popes not have that power, but if one were to
change a dogma, esp one held from the beginning, then ALL the dogmas can
go,
domino-style. There's nothing to stop that. (Same principle as with if
you let two men "marry" each other, than you can't stop one man and two
women "marrying" each other, or any other combo; all that restrains it
is public opinion, vox populi, which of course changes with the wind. And as General Sherman said, "Vox populi, vox humbug.")
However, Pope Francis, a.k.a. Jorge, Bergoglio, El Caudillo, Bergi,
and other nomenae, has just declared the Church opposes Capital punishment in
all circumstances. And he's ordered the Catechism to be so changed.
Boom!
How big is this?
Steve Skojec of OnePeterFive calls it a nuclear theological bomb.
It's how the Vatican II Church operates.
From the National Catholic Register:
Pope changes Church
teaching on death penalty. Says it is never justified.
An excerpt:
In an explanatory letter to
bishops, dated August 1, Archbishop Ladaria drew on the past teaching of Pope
St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the death penalty to state the change is
an “authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior
teachings of the Magisterium.”
An Préachán:
Oh, c'mon! That is completely untrue. 60 years now of the Vatican II Church saying X, and that X isn't a change from Y, but of course everyone knows X is now "in" and Y "out" and of course Z
is now permitted, as well, though it goes against "official teaching",
all with a "wink-wink, nod-nod, the fix is in, dontcha know" smirk – 60 years of this deceit and misdirection and "false-flag" operations is enough.
It's classic "disinformation". Psychological warfare. Plain and simple.
Protestants know this (some, at least); see:
Paul does not deny the right of the state to execute people. Instead of denouncing capital punishment, Paul assumes its validity and appeals to Caesar as was the right of Roman citizens when a crime worthy of death and then levied.
Conclusion
It seemed clear that New Testament does not denounce the idea of capital punishment but instead assumes the right of the state to use it.
Indeed. And for the Catholic, 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition reaffirm that.
See also:
Rod Dreher at The American Conservative An excerpt:
I don’t see how he can do
this. To be clear, I am in most cases opposed to the death penalty, but I agree
(agreed) with the previous teaching of the Catholic Church, which was (until
Francis’s statement) that it is permissible when there are no bloodless ways to
protect society. Catholic supporters of the death penalty have pointed out in
the past that there’s no way that the Church can totally forbid it, and remain
faithful to its past authoritative teachings.
In 2001, Avery
Cardinal Dulles, an eminent theologian wrote an essay about the Church and the
death penalty.
He shows how the Church,
from the patristic period until the 20th century, maintained consistently that
capital punishment was permissible under certain conditions. The (at the time)
official position of the Catholic Church was that the death penalty should only
be used in extreme situations.
An Préachán again:
I think this needs reiterated: St.
Paul, that teacher so elemental to the Faith, wrote in both Romans 13:1-4, and Acts 25:10-11,
that capital punishment was allowed. And therefore each generation of the Church has held this as well,
and it is an indelible part of Sacred Tradition. You can't change that,
or of you try, you
declare yourself a heretic. You've removed yourself from both Tradition
and Revelation. You are, in effect, claiming a new revelation. (And you
open the door to changing anything you don't like – which is what the Vatican II Church has been doing for 60 years.)
But Begoglio has done that to himself, now. And his officials approve it. Is this the "Sarajevo bullet" that begins full-fledged Church crisis? De jure, not just de facto. It should.
See again my favorite modern philosopher, Edward Feser, here:
for details. That was little less than a year ago. Feser authored, a little over a year ago, the book, By Man Shall His Blood be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment (15 Mar 2017) It is a detailed defense of the traditional Catholic teaching.
JP2
said dangerously close to those waters but didn't dive wholly in. Bergi has.
So,
what's it mean? If
you are a Catholic, you're no longer under any obligation to the guy?
It's
over? We are not "sheeple", or we shouldn't be; "Dogma Denial" is a
Rubicon no pope can cross. The
Deposit of Faith has been compromised.
You,
as an individual, might find capital punishment distasteful, or
barbaric, or that it is sometimes (historically, certainly) abused. But
so what? It is meted out to individuals 1,000s of times a day around the
world by murderers, robbers, Islamic zealots, Communists, and official
police forces either intentional or "by accident" as here:
Vietnam veteran shot
intruder trying to murder his (the veteran’s grandson) and the police shot and
killed the veteran.
“They shot first and asked
questions later.”
See also: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/01/bodycam-footage-lapd-hostage-shooting-released/
Hostage shot to death along with hostage taker.
You are not
going to "wish it away" and the Church has tried to restrict it to
what it ought to be for, but now the Vatican Twoers – who so officiously think they've taken
the high road, have merely – as so often – emasculated themselves. To
put it bluntly, this is "virtue signaling", something this pope is
congenitally addicted to. That's all. There's far more Narcissism to it
than necessity.
Now,
will the Cardinals and bishops who claim to be orthodox respond to this
with
anathema, "bell, book and candle," as Bergoglio deserves, or what? They seem hopeless about dealing with the Church Sex Abuse Scandal. Totally. See:
I've
been predicting the Church would go into Schism de jure as it has clearly been
in Schism de facto (since 1968 and the push back against Humanae Vitae).
Now
what?
An Préachán
No comments:
Post a Comment