The, "He used bad Latin so he is still Pope," claims
Dr Peters. "In light of the law"
....What the 1983 Code does say, as did the 1917 Code, is this: “Only those laws must be considered invalidating … which expressly state that an act is null …” (c. 10, olim c. 11). Because no canon of the 1983 Code, under which Benedict XVI submitted his resignation (c. 332 § 2), addresses the quality of the Latin used in papal documents, let alone does any canon make the Latinity of papal documents go to their validity, I say, odd question answered: bad Latin does not mean that one must remain pope.
Father Benedict legally abdicated/resigned and both he and Dr. Peters say that claims he didn't are absurd.
In any event, these sisyphean struggles always end up in the same place.
One consequence of these repeated false claims is the Catholic Church has accepted a fake Pope which means it has failed when it is the case that the acceptance of a papal election by the Bishops and Faithful is a dogmatic infallible fact.
Of course, such truths are easily seen whereas the fog of rhetorical wars (My latinist can beat up your latinist) keeps the sisyphean struggle as the new sempiternal circus and we need our circuses, don't we?
....What the 1983 Code does say, as did the 1917 Code, is this: “Only those laws must be considered invalidating … which expressly state that an act is null …” (c. 10, olim c. 11). Because no canon of the 1983 Code, under which Benedict XVI submitted his resignation (c. 332 § 2), addresses the quality of the Latin used in papal documents, let alone does any canon make the Latinity of papal documents go to their validity, I say, odd question answered: bad Latin does not mean that one must remain pope.
Father Benedict legally abdicated/resigned and both he and Dr. Peters say that claims he didn't are absurd.
In any event, these sisyphean struggles always end up in the same place.
One consequence of these repeated false claims is the Catholic Church has accepted a fake Pope which means it has failed when it is the case that the acceptance of a papal election by the Bishops and Faithful is a dogmatic infallible fact.
Of course, such truths are easily seen whereas the fog of rhetorical wars (My latinist can beat up your latinist) keeps the sisyphean struggle as the new sempiternal circus and we need our circuses, don't we?
Comments
Post a Comment