Statue of St. Peter in front of St. Peter’s Basilica. / Credit: Vatican Media
National Catholic Register, Oct 2, 2023 / 02:34 am (CNA).
Five cardinals have sent a set of questions to Pope Francis to express their concerns and seek clarification on points of doctrine and discipline ahead of this week’s opening of the Synod on Synodality at the Vatican.
The cardinals said they submitted five questions, called “dubia,” on Aug. 21 requesting clarity on topics relating to doctrinal development, the blessing of same-sex unions, the authority of the Synod on Synodality, women’s ordination, and sacramental absolution.
Dubia are formal questions brought before the pope and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) aimed at eliciting a “yes” or “no” response, without theological argumentation. The word “dubia” is the plural form of “dubium,” which means “doubt” in Latin. They are typically raised by cardinals or other high-ranking members of the Church and are meant to seek clarification on matters of doctrine or Church teaching.
The dubia were signed by German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, 94, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences; American Cardinal Raymond Burke, 75, prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura; Chinese Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, 90, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong; Mexican Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, 90, archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara; and Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, 78, prefect emeritus of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
The same group of senior prelates say they submitted a previous version of the dubia on these topics on July 10 and received a reply from Pope Francis the following day.
But they said that the pope responded in full answers rather than in the customary form of “yes” and “no” replies, which made it necessary to submit a revised request for clarification.
Pope Francis’ responses “have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them,” they said in a statement to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s partner news outlet. They therefore sent the reformulated dubia on Aug. 21, rephrasing them partly so they would elicit “yes” or “no” replies.
The cardinals declined the Register’s requests to review the pope’s July 11 response, as they say the response was addressed only to them and so not meant for the public.
They say they have not yet received a response to the reformulated dubia sent to the pope on Aug. 21.
The Register sought comment from the Vatican on Sept. 29 and again on Oct. 1 but had not received a response by publication time.
The cardinals explained in a “Notification to Christ’s Faithful” dated Oct. 2 that they decided to submit the dubia “in view of various declarations of highly placed prelates” made in relation to the upcoming synod that have been “openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church.”
Those declarations, they said, “have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of goodwill, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman pontiff.”
The initiative, the cardinals added, was taken in line with canon 212 § 3, which states it is a duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church.”
The practice of issuing dubia has come to the fore during this pontificate. In 2016, Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller along with late Cardinals Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner submitted a set of five dubium to Pope Francis seeking clarification on the interpretation of Francis’ apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, particularly regarding the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to the sacraments. They did not receive a direct response to their questions.
In 2021, the DDF issued a “responsa ad dubium” giving a simple “no” to a dubium on whether the Church has “the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex.” That same year, the Dicastery for Divine Worship issued a responsa ad dubia on various questions relating to the implementation of Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’ motu proprio restricting the Traditional Latin Mass.
Then in January of this year, Jesuit Father James Martin directly sent Pope Francis a set of three dubium seeking clarification of comments the Holy Father had given the Associated Press on the issue of homosexuality. The pope replied to the questions with a handwritten letter two days later.
What both dubia contain
The first dubium (question) concerns development of doctrine and the claim made by some bishops that divine revelation “should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether divine revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted.”
The cardinals said the pope responded July 11 by saying that the Church “can deepen her understanding of the deposit of faith,” which they agreed with, but that the response did “not capture our concern.” They reinstated their concern that many Christians today argue that “cultural and anthropological changes of our time should push the Church to teach the opposite of what it has always taught. This concerns essential, not secondary, questions for our salvation, like the confession of faith, subjective conditions for access to the sacraments, and observance of the moral law,” they said.
They therefore rephrased their dubium to say: “Is it possible for the Church today to teach doctrines contrary to those she has previously taught in matters of faith and morals, whether by the pope ex cathedra, or in the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, or in the ordinary universal magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25)?”
In the second dubium on blessing same-sex unions, they underscored the Church’s teaching based on divine revelation and Scripture that “God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful” (Gen 1:27-28), and St. Paul’s teaching that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1:24-32). They then asked the pope if the Church can deviate from such teaching and accept “as a ‘possible good’ objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?”
The pope responded July 11, the cardinals said, by saying that equating marriage to blessing same-sex couples would give rise to confusion and so should be avoided. But the cardinals said their concern is different, namely “that the blessing of same-sex couples might create confusion in any case, not only in that it might make them seem analogous to marriage, but also in that homosexual acts would be presented practically as a good, or at least as the possible good that God asks of people in their journey toward him.”
They therefore rephrased their dubium to ask if it were possible in “some circumstances” for a priest to bless same-sex unions “thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God?” Linked to that dubium, they asked if the Church’s teaching continues to be valid that “every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out.”
Question about synodality
In the third dubium, the cardinals asked whether synodality can be the highest criterion of Church governance without jeopardizing “her constitutive order willed by her Founder,” given that the Synod of Bishops does not represent the college of bishops but is “merely a consultative organ of the pope.” They stressed: “The supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the pope by virtue of his office and by the college of bishops together with its head the Roman pontiff (Lumen Gentium, 22).”
The cardinals said Pope Francis responded by insisting on a “synodal dimension to the Church” that includes all the lay faithful, but the cardinals said they are concerned that “synodality” is being presented as if it “represents the supreme authority of the Church” in communion with the pope. They therefore sought clarity on whether the synod can act as the supreme authority on crucial issues. Their reformulated dubium asked: “Will the Synod of Bishops to be held in Rome, and which includes only a chosen representation of pastors and faithful, exercise, in the doctrinal or pastoral matters on which it will be called to express itself, the supreme authority of the Church, which belongs exclusively to the Roman pontiff and, una cum capite suo, to the college of bishops (cf. can. 336 C.I.C.)?”
Holy Orders and forgiveness
In the fourth dubium, the cardinals addressed statements from some prelates, again “neither corrected nor retracted,” which say that as the “theology of the Church has changed,” so therefore women can be ordained priests. They therefore asked the pope if the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and St. John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which “definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid.” They also sought clarification on whether or not this teaching “is no longer subject to change nor to the free discussion of pastors or theologians.”
In their reformulated dubium, the cardinals said the pope reiterated that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be held definitively and “that it is necessary to understand the priesthood, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, in order to understand correctly Our Lord’s decision to reserve holy orders to men only.” But they took issue with his response that said the question “can still be further explored.”
“We are concerned that some may interpret this statement to mean that the matter has not yet been decided in a definitive manner,” they said, adding that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis belongs to the deposit of faith. Their reformulated dubium therefore comprised: “Could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the sacrament of orders, which the Church cannot change?”
Their final dubium concerned the Holy Father’s frequent insistence that there’s a duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution. The cardinals asked whether the contrition of the penitent remains necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, “so that the priest must postpone absolution when it is clear that this condition is not fulfilled.”
In their reformulated dubium, they note that the pope confirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent on this issue, that absolution requires the sinner’s repentance, which includes the resolve not to sin again. “And you invited us not to doubt God’s infinite mercy,” they noted, but added: “We would like to reiterate that our question does not arise from doubting the greatness of God’s mercy, but, on the contrary, it arises from our awareness that this mercy is so great that we are able to convert to him, to confess our guilt, and to live as he has taught us. In turn, some might interpret your answer as meaning that merely approaching confession is a sufficient condition for receiving absolution, inasmuch as it could implicitly include confession of sins and repentance.” They therefore rephrased their dubium to read: “Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?”
Vatican context
The public release of the documents, obtained by the Register and other news outlets, comes two days before the opening of the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, a pivotal and highly controversial event in the Catholic Church.
The gathering in Rome marks a historic moment for the Church because for the first time in its history, laypeople, women, and other non-bishops will participate as full voting synod delegates, though the pope will ultimately decide whether to accept any of the assembly’s recommendations.
Pope Francis, either directly or through the Roman Curia, has previously addressed the topics brought up by the five cardinals and their dubia.
On the issue of the development of doctrine and possible contradictions, Pope Francis has frequently described a vision of doctrinal expansion grounded in a particular understanding of St. Vincent of Lerins’ maxim that Christian dogma “progresses, consolidating over the years, developing with time, deepening with age.” The pope has said doctrine expands “upward” from the roots of the faith as “our understanding of the human person changes with time, and our consciousness deepens.”
For instance, the Holy Father has said that while the death penalty was accepted and even called for by previous Catholic doctrine, it is “now a sin.” “The other sciences and their evolution also help the Church in this growth of understanding,” the pope said. In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis said that this kind of approach might be considered “imperfect” by those who “dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuance,” but “the reality is that such variety helps us to better manifest and develop the different aspects of the inexhaustible richness of the Gospel.”
On the topic of blessing same-sex unions, which have been pushed for in places like Germany, the Vatican’s chief doctrinal office, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, weighed in on the matter in 2021, clarifying that “the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.” However, some have speculated that, in spite of the DDF text referencing his approval, Pope Francis was displeased by the document. Relatedly, Antwerp’s Bishop Johan Bonny claimed in March that the pope did not disapprove of the Flemish-speaking Belgian bishops plan to introduce a related blessing, although this claim has not been substantiated and it is not clear that the Flemish blessing is, in fact, the kind explicitly disapproved by the DDF guidance.
Regarding the DDF text, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin cited it in his criticism of the German Synodal Way’s decision to move forward with attempted blessings of same-sex unions, but he also added that the topic would require further discussion at the upcoming universal synod. More significantly, new DDF prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, a close confidant of Pope Francis, stated in July that while he was opposed to any blessing that would confuse same-sex unions with marriage, the 2021 DDF guidance “lacked the smell of Francisco” and could be revisited during his tenure.
Regarding the authority of the forthcoming synod, although Pope Francis has expanded voting rights in the Synod of Bishops beyond the episcopacy, he has also repeatedly emphasized that the synod “is not a parliament” but a consultative, spiritual gathering meant to advise the pope. The pope did adjust canon law in 2018 to allow for the final document approved by a Synod of Bishops to “participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter,” though only if “expressly approved by the Roman pontiff.”
On the possibility of the sacramental ordination of women, Pope Francis reaffirmed in 2016 that St. John Paul II’s clear “no” via Ordinato Sacederdotalis (1994) was the “final word” on the subject. In 2018, then-DDF prefect Cardinal Luis Ladaria confirmed that the male-only priesthood is “definitive.” In a 2022 interview with America magazine, Pope Francis again affirmed that women cannot enter ordained ministry and said that this should not be seen as a “deprivation.”
The pope has established two separate commissions to consider the question of a female diaconate, but the first, historically-based commission did not come to any definitive consensus and the second, focusing on the issue from a theological perspective, seems similarly unlikely to offer univocal support for a female diaconate. However, the synod’s Instrumentum Laboris does ask if “it is possible to envisage” women’s inclusion in the diaconate “and in what way?”
Finally, regarding withholding absolution in the confessional, the pope has previously referred to priests who refrain from offering absolution for certain moral sins without the bishop’s permission as “criminals” and told the Congolese bishops in February that they must “always forgive in the sacrament of reconciliation,” going beyond the Code of Canon Law to “risk on the side of forgiveness.”
Jonathan Liedl, senior editor of the National Catholic Register, contributed to this story.
[…]
It would be very difficult for me to adequately express what extreme anxiety this pontificate has caused me. It seems PF is determined to prove that the Church has been a fraud from the beginning by changing unchangeable doctrines. Would it be sinful to pray that the Lord would call PF home, immediately? Alas, the college of cardinals has been stacked anyway. We would very likely just end up with a PF clone.
Bishop Wilmer applies ambiguity on doctrine as a form of adherence similar to Pope Francis. Cardinal Ladaria Ferrer who also seemed in line with the Zeitgeist when he admonished the American bishops allow for diversity regarding communion for Catholic bishops who support abortion, has now regained visible status as a defender of the faith in his condemnation of the German Synodaler Weg. If that’s why he is ‘released’ at 78, 3 years past retirement age when others are retained by Pope Francis he goes out with honor.
“For the Holy Father must be fully informed of the views of Bishop Wilmer”(Wiegel). Considering His Holiness’ personal appointments of Card Hollerich SJ as Synod on Synodality relator, Archbishop Paglia as prefect of the Pontifical Academy for Life, his tolerance [of which Wiegel very recently warned against as damaging calling into question Synodality itself] of the German Synod it’s sufficiently clear there’s a pattern. Card Parolin’s warning the Pontiff of Wilmer’s extreme heterodoxy is questionable.
George Wiegel’s previous marked concern on the direction of the Synod on Synodality itself – if Francis doesn’t take decisive action against the German Synod [Robert Royal theorized it may be a template for the former] that it would cast a shadow on his pontificate – would also be duly warranted in the Heiner Wilmer CDF scenario.
Correction: To clarify should read, “when he admonished the American bishops allow for diversity concerning bishops who permit communion for Catholic politicians who support abortion”.
I have great respect for your intelligence and that of Mr. Weigel, although he has been stubborn about acknowledging Francis’ faults. But I have trouble understanding how anyone can doubt that Francis has not been fully aware of and approving of the heterodox leanings of Bishop Wilmer already.
Wow! It sounds like the German Bishops are planning a hostile takeover of Christ’s Church! The German Bishops schism away from Christ’s Church, but now the German Bishops are trying to force their Progressive operatives into our Catholic Church hierarchy.
https://youtu.be/ZnKB9NzgD4k
It certainly does sound like an attempted hostile takeover, which may lead to schism. But schism is preferable to accommodating apostasy.
The views of the progressive German bishops was, I believe, aptly defined in an earlier era by a fellow German. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called it “cheap grace.”
After the fall of the papacy’s Papal States temporal power in 1870, Pope Leo XIII was then in tremendous fear of Freemasonry seizing control of the Spiritual power of St. Peter’s Chair as well. In great distress, Pope Leo XIII sent out the Calling All Angels, SOS, Distress, Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. The prayer to St. Michael the Archangel was recited after all low Masses around the world from the 1880s to 1964. It is still recommended today.
The 1890 version of the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, is really an exorcism prayer, put in place to protect the, “Holy Place” Chair of St. Peter, from the, Matthew 24:15 The Great Tribulation. “When you see the desolating abomination spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place”.
Do we have our best Catholic Priest exorcists praying, night and day 24/7, the 1890 Exorcist prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, at the Vatican? I think we ought to have all Catholics around the world now switch to praying the 1890 version of the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, to beg Michael the Archangel come and “cast into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl through the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.”
A portion of, Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel 1890 version
These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions.
In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most blessed Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.
Arise then, O invincible prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and bring them the victory.
Quoted from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_to_Saint_Michael…
“Papal ban of Freemasonry,
Leo XIII “emphasizes that ‘the ultimate and principal aim’ of Masonry ‘was to destroy to its very foundations any civil or religious order established throughout Christendom, and bring about in its place a new order founded on laws drawn out of the entrails of naturalism’.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_ban_of_Freemasonry
Matthew 24:15 The Great Tribulation.
“When you see the desolating abomination spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, a person on the housetop must not go down to get things out of his house, a person in the field must not return to get his cloak. Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers in those days. Pray that your flight not be in winter or on the sabbath, for at that time there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will be.
We read: “What would it mean – what would it signal to the rest of the world Church…?”
WOULD IT MEAN that, as the Synod on Synodality suffocates the Church in the “smoke of Satan,” the Prefect for the (mere) Dicaster for the Doctrine of the Faith would remain…SILENT?
WOULD IT MEAN that the very idea of articulate “doctrine” has been fully displaced by the fluid “process” (!) of synodality?
WOULD IT MEAN that while the Nicene Creed is retained, it serves in a more decorative role, like the coliseum, or anything fixed in writing, or any other “backward”-looking memory of a past hat means nothing–that “meaning” itself has no meaning?
WOULD IT MEAN, then, that the lockstep Synod on Synodality will be extended not only from 2023 into 2024, but then into 2025—the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea? Surprise, surprise!
WOULD IT MEAN, then, that the Council of Nicaea was not a doctrinal affirmation of the singular event of the Incarnation at the center of human history, but rather that the “incarnation” is more of a culture-bound idea (Rahner?), and instead, that “realities are more important than ideas”? This ambiguous anti-doctrine being one of the four “principles” (a doctrine!) superimposed into Evangelii Gaudium (2013)…
NICAEA, about which: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/10/18/opinion-yesterdays-council-of-nicaea-and-todays-synodism/
A CWR posting from which, this: “The institutional question is: Was Nicaea more an act of consensus and decision, or firstly and instead, a forthright and deeper judgment of fidelity and exclusion [!]? Was Nicaea the result of a voted synodal consensus while ‘walking together,’ or was it the rejection [!] of a false consensus, while standing together? Some historians estimate that prior to Nicaea, eight out of ten Catholic bishoprics had succumbed to the Arian apostasy. Does this lingering secular-ecclesial ‘consensus’ best account for the forced exile of Athanasius, five times after Nicaea, between 335 and 366? Too rigid? Too bigoted?”
Textual abuse (!) and silence by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith WOULD MEAN no longer that “the smoke of Satan” has entered the Church (as Pope Paul VI reported), but rather that the Church has entered the smoke of Satan.
With apologies for added length, an ADDENDUM to the above inquiry: The Second Vatican Council developed the needed grounding for our totally novel situation today of nihilism and the “tyranny of relativism”—by rooting the future of the Church within it’s very self-understanding (ressourcement) and then, with this, evangelizing willfully and truly (aggiornamento).
Three Points and a further Inquiry:
FIRST, likewise, the Catholic Act of Faith engages the whole person; it is an act of both the INTELLECT (rooted in MEMORY) and the WILL. The will, and the intellect engaged with reasoned inquiry, a field well-plowed by the Classical world.
SECOND, facing a similar turning point in Arabia, Islam is an act only of the WILL (the time prior to Muhammad is dismissed as “the days of ignorance”—a time of intertribal division to be replaced by a megatribe moving ever forward and outward). One becomes a Muslim by simply saying “Ash Shadoo an La ilaha illa Allah, Wa Ash Shadoo ana Muhammadan rasoolu Allah.” (“I bear witness that there is no true god except God [Allah], and I bear witness that Muhammad is the [Final] Messenger of God.”)
THIRD, in our own post-Christian and tribal moment of nihilism and the “tyranny of relativism,” the synodal strategy disconnects too much the Church (and the human person!) from its full personality (of the memory/intellect and will), with too little self-accountability. Rather, a “compiled, aggregated and synthesized” expression of so many willful (!) needs.
But no need for the well-grounded and real Second Vatican Council…
Possible because the Council is rooted in both the full Revelation AND the full meaning of each human personality in the innate NATURAL LAW (Gaudium et Spes, nn. 16, 17). As understood in the Catechism (unmutilated, as now signaled by Bats-sing, Grech/Hollerich & Co.) and as affirmed by the Magisterium regarding moral absolutes in Veritatis Splendor (especially nn. 95, 115).
INQUIRY, after unsuccessfully “walking together” at the areopagus with the pagan Athenians (toward their “unknown god”), the less accommodating (!) St. Paul entered the port-city corruptions of Corinth to teach only “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2:1-2). Why, therefore, is today’s synodal “endless journey” so backward looking (and even Islamic?)—so detached from the conversion, thanksgiving and sacrifice (!) of the Eucharist (CCC 1374)?
sigh…another ecclesiastic functionary who could not find God or his behind with a flashlight, and so, revolution must be the answer, where the voice of the people MUST be the voice of God. They are so very lost. I bet he has a really nice residence, and excellent liquor cabinet at the residence bar, though.
When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”(Lk 18, 8)
PF is using the power of the papacy to destroy the papacy…. The CC can become one of the Largest of 40,000+ Proddy sects … each of us can shop for a Suitable or apt Church of What’s Happening Now, for God wills all of them. Maybe people will be invited to dip their symbolic Eucharist in a cup of coffee and Irish cream.
We are in chastisement… sex, drugs and rock’n roll have delivered us. Or are we aborted?
If you look at his published work and background, the thinness of his preparation in sacramental theology, scripture, ecclesiology and dogmatics is notable.
He did seminary academic work at Freiburg (Germany), studied the modern philosopher Blondel at the Gregorian in Rome, and returned to Germany to earn his Doctorate in Theology at Freiburg, his thesis being Blondel and mysticism.
Blondel is quite the abstract modern theologian.
The danger in that sort of academic hyper-specialization is a lack of broad knowledge in theology. He has five publications, all of them on rather abstract topics (Blondel, Duns Scotus’ First Principles). According to his wiki he was a visiting prof at Fordham Prep – and he taught history!
The office of Prefect of the CDF (now the DDF) demands a background in Scripture, Dogmatics, Ecclesiology and Sacramental Theology. That would usually be substantiated via a deep publication history on relevant matters of theology.
It’s no surprise he views the Eucharist as “over-rated.” The trend among younger Catholics towards the Vetus Ordo is a precise and direct response to clergy who speak of the Eucharist as if it were a community encounter, rather than as a) central aspect of the Catholic faith and b) essential to salvation history.
“One hopes that Pope Francis is also aware that the appointment of a man such as Bishop Wilmer as Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith would throw into crisis the Synod on Synodality that has become the centerpiece of his pontificate.”
Lol. He’s aware.
How is this possible? How can this or any Pope, leader of the Roman Catholic Church and one who sits on the seat of Peter, who has been given the keys to the Kingdom put any priest into a position of authority? How is it the Pope does not stop this heresy within the German Church and those popping up elsewhere? Saddened, sickened at those statements from the Bishop and another reason to believe that THE Church will soon be smaller but more faithful to Jesus Christ and his teaching. I am no theologian by a long way, but I try to be a faithful Catholic and this Bishop and others are unfaithful IMO.
If this man is appointed head of the CDF then truly dark days are ahead. The SCJs are extremely heterodox and this man will be a poison.
While not for a moment agreeing with this appointment, which will be anything but good; I have to admit for a 61 year old to look like he was only ordained is quite an accomplishment! What’s his secret?
Watching Mass on the Computer may be acceptable if a parishioner is ill or cannot reach Church that Sunday. However, used for any reason other than illness does not fulfill your Sunday obligation.
the franciscan
To say the least, Germany isn’t a nation teeming with evangelizing, committed Catholics. Nor has it been for a very long time. Nor will it be if all these “changes” were adopted. What more needs to be said?
Even within the church, “important” people are given privileges over the ordinary. Horrible that these pro-abortion politicians were so welcomed and were given communion! Popes and priests that did and do that should be intensely corrected and maybe even excommunicated!
During my years of atheism, the philosophical proposition was always self-evident to me that if God existed, He could not be an idiot. My delay in becoming a believer was prolonged by the fact that vast numbers of religious people I met had no problem at all treating God as an idiot which is exactly what God would have to be to turn everything “upside down” He had previously been leading them towards for thousands of years. In due course I simply applied the self-evident fact that it is impossible for sinners to not be idiots much of the time, which would include self-serving assumptions about God.
In the midst of the Christmas season, late in the day on Dec. 27, Rorate Caeli blog published news. Heiner Wilmer’s appointment to the DDF was apparently shut down by the College of Cardinals.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/12/cardinals-block-appointment-of-heiner.html