Deposition of the pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshringsell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn’t say that was from Bishop Cupich. AB Vigano said this in his letter.
I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just as I do not know who was responsible for this incredible delay.
Click to expand...
So, if he does not know when the sanctions took place, he wasn’t around when they happened, and they were not in writing, his testimony on this can be nothing by hearsay at best.
 
pnewton said:
So, if he does not know when the sanctions took place, he wasn’t around when they happened, and they were not in writing, his testimony on this can be nothing by hearsay at best.
Click to expand...
The existence of the sanctions is confirmed by Benedict, among others. What are you calling into question about these sanctions?
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
The existence of the sanctions is confirmed by Benedict, among others.
Click to expand...
I have been trying to find this since your post. No luck so far.

I found this from CNS

http://www.catholicnews.com/service...iganos-text-and-how-are-catholics-to-know.cfm
It could be that Pope Benedict did not want to draw attention to behavior that was not public knowledge. But, as one canon lawyer at the Vatican told Catholic News Service Aug. 28, “at best it’s weird, an anomaly” not to publish a sanction that has public consequences, such as forbidding the cardinal to celebrate Mass publicly or make public appearances.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
“The Register has independently confirmed that the allegations against McCarrick were certainly known to Benedict, and the Pope Emeritus remembers instructing Cardinal Bertone to impose measures but cannot recall their exact nature.”


www.ncregister.com

Archbishop Gänswein’s Comments Were Correct and We Stand By Our Reporting

The Register reported Aug. 25 that Benedict XVI had issued sanctions against then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick but we never stated that the Pope Emeritus confirmed — as alleged in The New York Times — all of Archbishop Viganò’s recent testimony on corruption in the Church.
www.ncregister.com www.ncregister.com

As for the consequences to McCarrick, that’s not puzzling to me at all. Public consequences would have drawn the press’s attention to McCarrick – a disaster! – and caused scandal to the Church.
 
I correct my phrasing “confirmed by Benedict”, however. It was confirmed by those close to Benedict.
 
Cardinal Wuerl is hardly a neutral source, since his life in the Church is basically over if what Vigano says is true. However, his denial is – again – a very narrow denial of one piece of Vigano’s testimony. The central claim – that Francis reinstated a known abuser – is not denied by Wuerl.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Cardinal Wuerl is hardly a neutral source, since his life in the Church is basically over if what Vigano says is true. However, his denial is – again – a very narrow denial of one piece of Vigano’s testimony. The central claim – that Francis reinstated a known abuser – is not denied by Wuerl.
Click to expand...
Of course he isn’t, but he is a source, just like unnamed sources are a source. The point is, there is nothing in writing, and there should be if sanctions were imposed, and Pope Benedict has spoken. To say this matter is confirmed at this point is a stretch.

I think in the end we will find that something was done, but not any official sanction, but that is pure speculation from me.
 
Last edited:
No…
This is AICA. Catholic. And his personal secretary

www.aciprensa.com

El secretario de #BenedictoXVI dijo que el Papa Emérito no ha confirmado el testimonio del ex nuncio #Viganò sobre el caso #McCarrick

El secretario personal de Benedicto XVI, el Arzobispo Georg Gänswein, aseguró que el Papa Emérito no ha confirmado el testimonio del ex nuncio Carlo María Viganò quien acusa al Papa Francisco de haber encubierto los abusos del ex cardenal Theodore McCarrick.
www.aciprensa.com www.aciprensa.com

https://translate.googleusercontent...700201&usg=ALkJrhgzqs0bB-BZAOtQ2w1JmuOjDvxdmw

" Speaking to the German daily Die Tagespost on August 28, Archbishop Gänswein said that the statement that Benedict XVI confirmed Viganò’s testimony is “fake news”.

The Archbishop also explained that Benedict XVI has not commented Viganò’s testimony and that he does not plan to do so."
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
there is nothing in writing
Click to expand...
Vigano claims that there is plenty in writing, hidden behind locked doors. Catholics must demand these documents, and journalists must seek them.

I don’t claim that all things are clear, but there is plenty to raise suspicions, and no one in authority has even denied Vigano’s central claims.
 
Last edited:
I also posted that link as well. 🌹

Question: What exactly has changed in Canon law that deposing of a pope via ecumenical councils isn’t possible anymore?

Note: I do not wish to depose of the pope.
 
Doesn’t it just seem ridiculous that the Church Hierarchy are still bumbling around about child sex-abuse? The Boston Globe Spotlight piece was in 2002, the Irish Ryan Commission went from 1999 to 2009. And they still give the appearance of being a bunch of bumbling old men who don’t know what to do. Time’s up guys. Take action or let people take charge who can clean this mess up.
 
LittleFlower said:
I also posted that link as well. 🌹

Question: What exactly has changed in Canon law that deposing of a pope via ecumenical councils isn’t possible anymore?

Note: I do not wish to depose of the pope.
Click to expand...
First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 3
  1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
Click to expand...
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
" Speaking to the German daily Die Tagespost on August 28, Archbishop Gänswein said that the statement that Benedict XVI confirmed Viganò’s testimony is “fake news”.

The Archbishop also explained that Benedict XVI has not commented Viganò’s testimony and that he does not plan to do so."
Click to expand...
I already corrected this, above. As the links I posted state, however, people close to Benedict have given assurances that there were sanctions on McCarrick.
 
Thank you ,Prodigal Son.
Nothing really concrete about the sanctions there yet.
 
I am trying to follow documentation. The rest may be all good but so far unclear,as I believe you also said. Concretely,there is nothing about itin writing at least.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
No one with the Vatican has denied them. Has anyone but Wuerl denied them – and Wuerl only denying knowing about them?
Click to expand...
I will deny them if you want, and point to the uninterrupted string of public appearances by McCarrick up to and including the consistory where Behedict XVI resigned. If anything was in place when Francis was elected, it was not in effect for very long.
 
Dovekin said:
I will deny them if you want, and point to the uninterrupted string of public appearances by McCarrick up to and including the consistory where Behedict XVI resigned. If anything was in place when Francis was elected, it was not in effect for very long.
Click to expand...
(1) You’re not with the Vatican.
(2) Benedict was obviously not able to enforce a ban that was private without removing McCarrick from office entirely – which would draw huge attention to WHY he was removed. Benedict was apparently terrified of rocking the boat; that’s why the sanctions weren’t made public in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top