+
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
Post a Comment