Wouldn’t it take a long long time to do, even if he did want to do it now? Wouldn’t he have to consult all the Bishops first?
He could die first, no one can say “I will do this” with complete conviction because no one knows when they will be called home. But of course the whole idea that someone who is not divine can see into the future is complete nonsense, and that is what I am referring to.
Anyway, according to the present day canons of the Latin church there is no requirement for the Pope to hold a Council, the means to determine whether the bishops are in agreement is rather fuzzy, I do not think a standard procedure has ever been determined and the Pope is not bound in any way by rules… in the modern Catholic church he is the rule maker. The Pope can himself decide whether he is satisfied that the bishops as a body agree and there is no appeal from his determination of the matter.
There is a serious flaw with petitions. They are not impartial, the people who sign such a thing are a self selected group. There is no instrument provided to register dissenting opinions… those who do not agree will have nothing to sign and they are not counted.
Things are promoted in this way because they are popular. Marian spirituality ebbs and flows in the western church and the popularity of a subject is not an indication of it’s antiquity of belief, nor of the correctness.
I will (again!) repost the
Vincentian Canon, which well describes the basis upon which all the early Christian bishops were able to tell what was orthodox catholic Christian teaching in the early centuries. This “rule of thumb” is still appropriate today…
Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow **universality **
, antiquity, and
consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
…whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
I have always objected to the idea that the causes of saints and dogmas could be promoted by sending postcards (or emails, or petitions) to the Vatican. This is not a popularity contest. Also, the persons who advocate these new dogmas already believe them, so what purpose is there in asking for a dogma? It is to impose these new ideas upon their neighbors.
How is this done? By threatening damnation upon them if they should disagree. It is like saying: “you must agree with what I already believe
even though it should not be, and has not been, necessary for your salvation (up until this time)… or go to hell.”
When the dogma is not actually about the divine (Holy Trinity of God, or the nature of Christ), this is a highly abusive, self-centered attitude for Christians to take. Most of these people are hardly aware of what they are really asking for.
This would not be a dogma that saves people, it can only damn people.
