No. I chose the wrong words. "What Marra is implying" would probably have been a better turn of phrase. I stand by my point, however. He does the same thing elsewhere in his essay when he says:
But who said that the decision to call the council was protected by the Holy Ghost?
A straw man. Nobody says "the decision was protected by the Holy Ghost". Because there is no cast iron guarantee of this, however, are we therefore to necessarily assume the opposite, i.e. that it was not the work of the Holy Ghost?
That is often the leap of logic which is taken by those who have a problem with the council.
Marra's essay could be summed up in one sentence "the pope can be wrong and has been in the past."
True enough but so what? This gives rise to a more pertinent question, however, which Marra flirts with but shys away from: "Why does that necessarily mean that he is wrong now and just as importantly, who decides if he is?"
Traditionalist or no traditionalist, one fact remains.
If the Pope's teachings and decisions are subject to Marra's (or anyone else's) second guessing, simply because there is no invocation of infallible authority, then Marra is the Pope.
It's as simple as that.
Hi All,
I've been reading for some time and at the urging of a friend find myself needing to throw in some comments.
On the comment:"If the Pope's teachings and decisions are subject to Marra's (or anyone else's) second guessing, simply because there is no invocation of infallible authority, then Marra is the Pope. It's as simple as that."
A person can only infer from a statement like this, that you subscribe to a doctrine of irresistibility to the Pope?
If not, was St. Paul second guessing St. Peter as recorded in Galatians? There is no material difference on the part of St Peter's behavior and St. Paul's rebuke regarding the events at Assisi except for the fact that St. Peter was known to have exhibited humility in accepting Paul's rebuke. Also St. Peter's behavior was on a far smaller scale than JPII's.
If JPII has not been upright in the faith taking the example of Assisi I and II, then, the fault lies with him and not the archbishop. The archbishop was then forced to take steps that St.Paul was not required to but speculatively might have done to maintain the purity of the transmission of the faith.
If one studies the case of the archbishop as well, you will realize that JPII never actually directly ordered the archbishop not to consecrate bishops. He cajoled, appealed and pleaded but never actually commanded.