Can you basically take "it was raining cats and dogs" from the mouth of a Pope to mean that one of the portents of the End Times is feline and canine actual animals falling down from the sky?
Vatican in Exile has a high ranking monk named Phil Friedl. He kind of does so a bit.
"Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce him." (Condemned) DZ: 1105
Various Errors On Moral Matters
Pope Alexander XII
24 September 1165 (Anno Domini: AD)
All offices shall be vacant ipso facto [means by the very fact] by tacit resignation in the following cases: “If a cleric has publicly lapsed from the Catholic Faith;”(Canon 188 Section 4 | 1917 Code of Canon Law, Fr. Woywood).
Followed by a meme image with "Pope Leo" speaking on dialogue with Muslims and Protestants.
Now, I have no beef with applying Canon 188 Section 4 to whether a man purported Pope is pope or not pope. And whether or not there is with "Leo" there certainly is with a predecessor "John Paul" a much graver indication of public lapse from the Catholic faith.
However, the other quote from an undoubted Pope is seriously mangled, in attribution and in context.
There is no "Pope Alexander XII" ... a rival to Pope Michael I was "Alejandro IX" in Argentina, I think he either stepped back or admitted it was a media hoax. He was a Feeneyite, by the way.
The latest undisputed pope Alexander is Alexander VIII. Now there is also a Pope Alexander VII who actually did condemn various errors.
2025 Dz 1105 5. Although it is evidently established by you that Peter is a heretic, you are not bound to denounce [him], if you cannot prove it.
ALEXANDER VII 1655-1667
Various Errors on Moral Matters *
[Condemned in decrees of Sept. 24, 1665, and of March 18.1666
A. On the 24th Day of September, 1665
Denzinger EN 1980
https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dxe.htm
And 1980 here seems to mean "after the modern Dz 1980" since the first item is 1981 Dz 1081. It's, along with the next one, against usury.
But what was I saying about "raining cats and dogs" and interpreting as if a Pope had spoken of the End Times, along with raining of stars and so on?
Well, the good Phil Friedl seems to take "Peter" here as referring to "the Apostle Peter or his current successor" ... and the fact seems to be, I'll check with Joe Heschmeyer, that it basically means "John Doe"* ...
Different legal codes of different languages involve different ways of discussing anyone whom the case may apply to.
In Spanish one may ask, I'm translating to English:
If Don Fulano lends Don Mengano 5000 maravedies, is Don Mengano obliged to pay him back 6000 maravedies the next year, if that's on the contract? No, that's usury, the contract is invalid. It's criminal on part of the one exacting more in return.
In Latin, whether in moral theology or canon law, it would go like this:
If Peter lends Paul 5000 maravedies, is Paul obliged to pay him back 6000 maravedies the next year, if that's on the contract? No, that's usury, the contract is invalid. It's criminal and mortally sinful on part of the one exacting more in return.
Let me be precise, this is obviously true if the sole reason the 5000 are payed back as 6000 is the fact of the loan. If it had been an investment loan instead, one could have agreed that the sum would grow or diminish in proportion to the value of the company invested in, like if Don Mengano / Paul has a specific kind of shop. Obviously, the 6000 correspond to a growth on the factor 6:5, and if the company had instead made losses, diminishing on a factor 4:5, Paul / Don Mengano would have owed only 4000 maravedies. That's NOT sinful. It's perfectly licit. If you take a real risk, you can merit a real profit. Peter or Don Fulano risked getting only 4000 maravedies back, and was lucky with the luck of the borrower and got 6000 maravedies back. Fine and dandy. No problem whatsoever.
The point is, however, that Peter and Paul would in this case not be very famous persons from Acts, and for Peter, from the Gospels, both also authors of Epistles. Latin has "Peter" and "Paul" because these are very common first names. Spanish has Don Fulano and Don Mengano because these are very uncommon (to non-extant) last names. The question was one in the context of the Inquisition.
If Phil Friedl wants to maintain it's germaine to his proposition, he is basically saying that a Pope mentioning "it's raining cats and dogs" (in a context like "if it's raining cats and dogs and you are outside all day, fasting rules are relaxed") would be making an apocalyptic prophecy.
However, do you know what strikes me as even more awkward and unworthy of a cultured Catholic discourse than the quote I just gave from Phil Friedl? §§ 283 and (as I recently added) 247 of the CCC. Wojtyla wasn't being incompetent in expressing the Catholic faith, he was competent in expressing something else, Scientism and overdoing ecumenics with the Orthodox. I would say on a level which very much is incompatible with expressing the Catholic faith.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XVIIth Lord's Day after Pentecost
20.IX.2026
* In context, denouncing John Doe as a heretic would mean doing so to the Inquisition or to the curate.
No comments:
Post a Comment