Vatican City, May 22, 2017 / 12:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- When Pope Francis was asked last week about his upcoming meeting with U.S. president Donald Trump, he made headlines for answering that he always tries to look for common ground.
Given that they have vocally disagreed on prominent issues in the past, what will the areas of shared agreement be?
The two are set to meet at the Vatican Wednesday, May 24, at 8:30 a.m., before Pope Francis’ weekly general audience.
President Trump arrives to Italy May 23 after stopping in both Saudi Arabia and Israel as part of his first international trip, which lasts nine days. He will also attend a NATO meeting in Brussels on May 25 and a G7 summit in Sicily on May 26.
Perhaps the most prominent area of disagreement between Trump and Francis is immigration.
During a Feb. 18, 2016, in-flight press conference, the Pope was asked to respond to Donald Trump’s immigration stand, particularly his threat to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Pope Francis responded saying “a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel.” However, he also said that he would “give the benefit of the doubt” to the political candidate.
One week prior, Trump had bashed Pope Francis as a “pawn” for the Mexican government and “a very political person” who does not understand the problems of the United States.
After the fact, then-Holy See spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi told Vatican Radio that the Pope’s comment “was never intended to be, in any way, a personal attack or an indication of how to vote” and had repeated a longstanding theme of his papacy: bridge-building.
During Trump’s time in office so far, U.S. bishops – who have Francis’ full backing on the issue – have been critical of Trump’s moves on immigration, criticizing the “ban” he implemented in his first week in office halting refugee admissions for 120 days – indefinitely for Syrian refugees – and temporarily banning visa permissions for people seeking entry to the United States from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump and Francis also have very divergent opinions on climate change. Francis insisted on the need to protect creation in his environmental encyclical Laudato Si, saying problems such as global warming are caused by human activity.
The Pope gave his full support of the Paris Climate deal in 2015, sending Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, to the Nov. 30-Dec. 11 summit as his personal delegate to the gathering.
Trump later threatened to back out of the deal, but delayed the process until after the G7 summit he’ll be participating in this week.
While there will certainly be these and other points the two disagree on, there are several issues – other than their shared disregard for formal protocol – that could actually bring the two together.
These, to name a few, could be: pro-life issues, above all defense of the unborn; religious freedom, particularly for Christians in the Middle East; and the push for a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Since his campaign days, Trump has identified himself as pro-life, and even gave a shout-out to the Jan. 27 March for Life in Washington D.C. in a clip of an interview with David Muir of ABC.
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence became the first vice president to participate in the event, giving a keynote speech that stressed the “sanctity of life.”
Pro-life issues are likely to be at least one strong point of union for Trump and Francis, who has often spoken out against abortion and other concerns such as euthanasia, calling them in one audience in 2014 “sins against God.”
He has also encouraged the use of conscientious objection based on religious convictions, at one point describing it as “a basic human right.”
When it comes to the Trump administration, the pro-life issue remains a big issue for many U.S. Catholics, who praised the president’s reinstatement of the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibits U.S. funding of non-government organizations that either promote or perform abortions through family-planning funds.
Trump was also lauded for his appointment of Niel Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left when Justice Antonin Scalia passed away last year. Gorsuch has been praised not only for his pro-life stance, but also for his commitment to religious freedom.
Pope Francis and Trump are also likely to share concern for persecuted Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
Both Trump and Francis have called for greater solidarity and protection of persecuted Christians.
Francis has repeatedly spoken out on modern persecution, saying there are more martyrs today than in the early Church, with the “ecumenism of blood” having become a watermark phrase of his pontificate.
Trump himself said during his campaign that protecting persecuted Christians would be a priority. As evidence of this intent, at a May 11 summit on persecuted Christians U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said, “We’re with you, we stand with you,” and assured of both his and Trump’s prayers.
As with any political figure, questions still loom as to how much Trump will actually do, especially if differing political opinions get in the way. But overall, the topic will likely be a point of agreement and collaboration with the Vatican.
And while Trump’s previous rhetoric on Islam is something Francis would likely hastily disagree with, a recent shift in the president’s tone is something the Pope would certainly welcome.
During his election campaign, Trump called for the “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” and voicing his opinion that “Islam hates us.”
However, so far Trump’s rhetoric on Muslims has cooled during his first international trip abroad.
In his May 21 speech at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Ridyadh, Saudi Arabia, Trump avoided the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” referring instead to “the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires.”
“The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their country and, frankly, for their families and for their children,” Trump said, speaking to leaders from more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries.
The choice is “between two futures,” and “it is a choice America cannot make for you,” he said, adding that “a better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and drive out the extremists.”
He said he didn’t come to “lecture,” but to seek an end to terrorism and the beginning of peace in the Middle East region, noting that roughly 95 percent of terrorist victims are themselves Muslim.
The president said he wants a partnership with people who share the same “interests and values” as the U.S., calling Islam one of the “great faiths” with an “ancient heritage” that has served as the “cradle of civilization.”
In addition, Trump said the problem of terrorism is not “a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it…This is a battle between good and evil.”
The U.S. president’s more moderate tone on Islam, and indeed his unprecedented praise of some aspects of Muslim culture, is something Pope Francis would likely appreciate. The Pope has on multiple occasions warned against “Islamophobia,” insisting that not all Muslims are terrorist.
However, while the two might have new-found common ground in terms of how they refer to the Muslim community, at least in the public sphere, Francis will likely take issue with the weapons deal signed by Trump and Saudi King Salman.
The deal guarantees the Middle Eastern powerhouse some $350 billion in weapons over the next 10 years, with $110 billion going into effect immediately.
Francis has consistently called for an end to the arms trade, criticizing nations that sell weapons to warring countries in order to keep the conflicts going that line their own pockets. The Pope has used almost countless occasions to insist for an end to this “scourge.”
Saudi Arabia has also been criticized by many other Middle Eastern nations for funding ISIS, most directly through weapons sales.
But regardless of the deal, terrorism is sure to be one of the key topics discussed, and if Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia is an indication of how he intends to address the issue from here on out, the two just might be able agree on this point.
After leaving Saudi Arabia, Trump flew to Israel for an official visit in a bid to cement Israeli ties and help move forward on a peace deal with Palestine. After arriving this morning, he voiced hopes to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin of a broader peace deal in the region.
“You have a great opportunity right now. Great feeling for peace throughout the Middle East. People have had enough of the bloodshed and the killing. I think we’re going to start see things starting to happen,” he told Rivlin.
In a speech to Israeli Prime Minister on the tarmac, Trump said: “We have before us a rare opportunity to bring security and stability and peace to this region and its people, defeating terrorism and creating a future of harmony, prosperity and peace, but we can only get there working together. There is no other way.”
In a previous encounter, Trump had asked Netenyahu to “hold off” on building more settlements in order help give space to further peace discussions in the region.
Earlier this month Trump met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas at the White House, telling him that when it comes to a deal that pleases both parties, “we will get it done.”
The commitment to a two-state solution has been a longstanding priority for the Vatican, which was reinforced during a recent 2015 agreement between Palestine and the Holy See to promote religious freedom in the area.
Trump himself, however, has said his administration is not married to the idea of a two-state solution to the decades-long conflict, deviating from previous administrations on the issue.
While the Vatican and Trump might not agree on what exactly a peace deal looks like, it’s likely to be a shared concern.
Another topic that could be a point of union between the Pope and the president is human trafficking; not necessarily because Trump himself has been a hardliner on the issue, but more likely because the president’s daughter and high-profile adviser Ivanka Trump has made a commitment to it.
It is in this capacity that she is participating in each of the nine days of Trump’s first trip abroad as president, including the public portion of his meeting with Francis.
While in Italy, Ivanka is also set to meet with the Community of Sant’Egidio, a group often praised by Pope Francis for their work with the poor and refugees, to discuss putting an end to human trafficking.
During the meeting, the Ivanka is expected to meet with several women who are victims of trafficking, and discuss various ways in which the Church and the U.S. government can collaborate on the issue.
So while there are clearly many areas in which Pope Francis and Trump diverge, the meeting will likely find both men seeking to find common ground.
Francis himself during his May 13 press conference refrained from making a premature evaluation of Trump, saying “I never make a judgment of a person without listening to them. I believe that I should not do this.”
When the two finally meet, “things will come out, I will say what I think, he will say what he thinks, but I never, ever, wanted to make a judgment without hearing the person.”
Peace and friendship are things that can’t be forced, he said, explaining that they take daily effort and are “handcrafted.”
“Respect the other, say that which one thinks, but with respect, but walk together,” he said. Even if someone thinks differently, “be very sincere,” and respectful.
[…]
Well, we know he’s already managed to destroy the relationship with the Eastern Churches as they have cut off discussions over his gay blessings essay.If he wants to continue to damage the church, keep pushing the female deacon thing, which nobody wants but the most radical feminists. Its more than clear the action of female deacons and “priests” didn’t help the Protestant churches, whose attendance is far worse than ours.
So sick and tired of this Synodal garbage. The next Pope needs to issue a bull declaring there will be no more Synods ever again. Period.
The next Pope will be a Modernist far worse than Francis. He has already packed the Curia with Modernists and all the Cardinals are Modernists.
At this early date, might we respectfully propose ten questions on the ten listed themes? Especially since time pressures have forced the partial replacement of the synod itself by study groups. So, some early questions:
1. About the East, how to avoid quarantining of the recently estranged Eastern Orthodox Church, like all of the Church in Africa, as just another culturally defective “special case;”
2. About the “cry of the poor” as not excluding those who are impoverished spiritually and culturally (as noted in the less exclusionary teaching of Centesimus Annus, n. 57);
3. In the digital environment, yes!, the preservation of analogue reality over a Nominalist digital cosmos, and even AI; and affirmation in season and out of season of the “transcendent dignity of [each] human person,” and of the “real” Vatican Council in its Documents over the “virtual” council as is still peddled by clones of Hans Kung;
4. A “missionary perspective” which, however, clearly does not marginalize (a new “periphery”!) the received and missionary Deposit of Faith with digital sociology;
5. Attention to “ministerial forms” in a way that now does not mutilate the unity of sacramental ordination, as has been pioneered with redefined ministerial “blessings” (Fiducia Supplicans) and such that the diaconate is not rendered as both a sacrament and not-a-sacrament and as a stepping stone (“walking together”) toward an Anglicanized female priestesshoody;
6. About “ecclesial organizations,” wording that does not dilute the individual and personal accountability of each Successor of the Apostles, versus the leveling administrative convenience of conferences of bishops, even if synodally “continental”—a matter already settled and clarified scripturally and in Apostolos Suos (May 21, 1998);
7. On the selection, judicial role and meaning of ad limina visits for bishops, perhaps guidance on how better to transcend the progressive intrusion of the zeitgeist into the particular Churches—as less polyhedral than equally rooted in the incarnate Jesus Christ, “the same yesterday, today, and forever;”
8. On papal representatives in a missionary synodal perspective, surely a functional role, still, for the Dicastery on the Doctrine of the Faith—as the Magisterium now preserves both faith and explicitly (!) morals (the natural law about which the Church is neither the “author” nor the “arbiter,” Veritatis Splendor, n. 95).
9. Theological criteria (etc.) for first distinguishing what is only controverted (!) from what else might be actually controversial,” and certainly without schizophrenic separation of the pastoral from the doctrinal—as earlier Nestorianism, likewise, tried to split the unity of Jesus Christ in twain;
10.Handling of ecumenical journey and ecclesial practices which, nevertheless, does not in practice redefine the Eucharistic and Mystical Body of Christ as a contour-free, congregational mosaic—”walking together” out of step with the “hierarchical communion” of the perennial Church and Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium); and where, in the forwardist future, wide-screen congregational “synods” might even pretend to replace (“backwardist”?) internally coherenet ecumenical councils.
From the back bleachers, just some self-evident questions…
Nine appears the key affecting the remainder, “Theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues”. For example, what are synodal methodologies for shared discernment? Is it to proofread moral doctrine?
Discernment in so wide a context would pertain to common sense perception of ethical issues. Although it’s not required to call a universal Synod to address what’s practical knowledge that’s usually evaluated in the field. The intent on this scale of inquiry would more likely be a consensus on changes of doctrine. Whether such changes were to be formally pronounced by the Magisterium is troublesome and unlikely. Intent of change to doctrine would occur by less dramatic means, media proliferation of suggestions. Innovations wrapped in semi authentic gloss.
By the age of four, a child learns that wrongdoing necessitates finding ways to lie to Mommy and Daddy and to his very own self. It is amazing that after two thousand years of moral reflection by scholars and saints, dedicated to the Gospels, a gathering of those who currently represent this heritage can’t figure out that morality becomes complicated only when you’re trying to avoid it.
Wow, a whole lot of new entries for the Catholic Dictionary I’ve been working on for eleven years. Well, its a dictionary with a sub-title for Sorta-Catholic Catholics.
A classic nailing it Edward. Naughty children who’ve grown up to be naughty men.
How difficult for man to become more Christlike. Yet, how easy for man to become earthly and irreverent!
Thank you for proclaiming Jesus Christ and remaining steadfast.
How difficult for man to become more Christlike. Yet, how easy for man to become earthly and irreverent! This applies especially to Pope Francis.
Honestly, I am restraining from contributing as ultimately, some bishops will accept the worked-through conclusions at the end and some will not. Even at this time Pope Francis is hailing these groupings as “one of the fruits of the Synod process launched on 9 October 2021.” I suppose he is breaking it into study groups in order to meet the October deadline – is what he means? This so-called process is attempting to produce itself into a work of the Holy Spirit; while yet already demonstrating unnatural forcing of acceptance and planting synthetic circularity.
It is impossible for the groups to correct this!
‘ In the spirit of the Chirograph signed by me on 16 February, it is the task of the General Secretariat of the Synod, by joint agreement with the competent Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, to constitute these Groups, calling Pastors and Experts from all Continents to take part in them, and taking into consideration not only existing studies, but also the most relevant current experiences in the People of God gathered in the local Churches. It is important that the aforementioned Study Groups work according to an authentically synodal method, of which I ask you to be the guarantor.
This will enable the Assembly, in its Second Session, to focus more easily on the general theme that I assigned to it at the time, and which can now be summarized in the question: “How to be a synodal Church in mission?”. ‘
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2024/03/14/240314f.html
I wrote synthetic circularity above, without knowing that Cardinal Grech had already been confessing “circularity” and not imagining anyone would even use that language.
Subsequently to my writing I found out about this aspect of Grech and the so-called Synod, from Beaulieu’s post MARCH 27, 2024 AT 3:07 PM, CWR’s Extra! Extra! March 27.
It shows to me that they have “no shame” about what they’re doing (Grech et al). Passing it off and passing it on as a sincerity -not like our faith!
In the VATICAN.VA link Grech is calling on the monachists to be the “deep breath of prayer”. Timothy Radcliffe and Gregory Polan in the videos select other cues.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2021-08/grech-monastic-contemplative-listening-conversion-communion.html
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/03/27/extra-extra-news-and-views-for-wednesday-march-27-2024/
Polan’s views reflect Sr. Gabriela’s perspective or angle on “synod”. This brings us right back to various discussions at CWR the past 3 years or so.
I note again, the “synod” commentators are saying different things. I note also, my Archbishop attended and you don’t know a) what he said there and b) what he is saying here, after his return. Myself, I don’t know a) either, like you.
See Sr.’s comments in the CWR links. And mine in tandems.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/09/22/the-sacramental-nature-of-authority-and-the-limits-of-synodality/
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/05/09/synodality-bureaucratic-malaise-and-the-problem-of-power/
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/07/04/embracing-the-spirit-of-charity-in-a-post-dobbs-culture/
What safeguards and precautions are there to stop the place being turned into a “bargain basement” and to catch out or spot the miscreants?
‘ In the latest twist to a mounting privacy scandal in Italy, a Vatican prosecutor has announced opening an investigation to determine whether confidential information was used illicitly to influence the recent “trial of the century” on financial crime, which ended with the first-ever conviction of a cardinal by a Vatican civil court.
“As soon as I discovered, from articles in the press, the existence of electronic stalking regarding the Holy See, I opened a file, because I believe that someone followed our investigations from the outside,” said Alessandro Diddi, a veteran Italian lawyer who serves as the Vatican’s Promoter of Justice.
…..
Investigators say they’ve identified at least 800 suspicious searches undertaken by Striano related to 165 different individuals, although in recent comments to the Italian press Striano claimed the actual number of database searches he performed could reach as high as 40,000.
Among other things, investigators are seeking to understand if Striano and anti-mafia prosecutor Antonio Laudati, who’s also been named in the investigation, conducted these searches on behalf of other parties who were seeking to influence the outcome of political or legal procedures through the use of well-timed leaks. ‘
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2024/03/vatican-opens-probe-on-trial-of-the-century-amid-widening-italian-privacy-scandal
Proprietor owners of surveillance equipment co-operate with whomsoever they choose not merely with those with whom they enter into contract.
They are many proprietor owners and also proprietor co-owners. Equipment may be jointly developed or it may be leased out to an operator to hide the developer.
The Hong Kong invasion of privacy and invasion of confession laws, will mean that you may not interfere with wiretapping or obstruct the results.
This Hong Kong situation infuses a terrible flaw into the Holy See-China Provisional Agreement placing the secular authority inside the so-called internal forum.
Holy See will be unable to tell where things really are or what is or is not upheld.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/hong-kong-passes-national-security-law-forcing-priests-to-break-seal-of-confession/
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2024/03/14/pope-tells-priests-dont-ask-too-much-during-confession/
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2024/03/20/synodal-news-and-a-papal-saga/
The assertion of “no risk” from the new Hong Kong law is both foolhardy and deceitful. Even without a law there can be problems and you are supposed to take measures to deflect and disarm them. With the law, down to ad hoc eavesdroppers will be protected but also be duly employable officially; and the people in charge of them won’t necessarily divulge the state of affairs. You won’t even be able to tell if the patriotic bishop is less trustworthy from another bishop -or more.
You can’t prepare your flock to defend what is coming at them by misrepresenting it. Neither can you undress unjust law by saying “Oh it’s all good.”
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-asia/2024/03/hong-kong-diocese-says-no-risk-to-confession-with-security-law
Some advices about wisdom from 2013 –
‘ “The Kingdom of God is among us: do not seek strange things, do not seek novelties with this worldly curiosity. …” ‘
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/11/14/pope-francis-do-not-seek-novelties-with-this-worldly-curiosity/
These “Catholic idealists” helping deface the sacraments and sacramentals are helping deface everything else as well including a) clarity and right order (mercy and justice) in the secular and b) legitimate private initiative. Pope Francis seems unable to identify them as being under the spell of ideology. As the stakes go higher and things escalate he seems to become more and more UNWILLING TO ADMIT THAT, i.e., they fit with his own vision of things presented in little steps meant to demonstrate non-exclusion and other formulae in the “mission”.
A progression and a psychology that are not unfamiliar.
So far I’ve contributed 5 points on this and I am aiming to achieve a full slate of 10 of them to match with the Papal output and keep a pace with Mr. Beaulieu. To be frank I am praying that Pope Francis can handle the effectsas well as some others!
So this is the 6th. Cardinal Ambongo and my Archbishop present dualistic enigmas!
Ambongo is saying there could have been a way to “accept” FS. He was surprised at how it jumped out of the woodwork when he would have expected it to happen differently given the way things were going through October 2023. He has resisted it on the basis that it couldn’t fit with the culture; and the Pope endorses this.
He also insists it is a western imperialism.
I suspect a level of consultation was already made -at least shortly after the publication. But it is possible they conferred immediately prior! How shall we ever discover it?
Ambongo’s rationale and collaboration square with Evangelii Gaudium, unity prevails over conflict. But not with EG’s the whole is greater than the part.
But if he is against homosexualism in principle as he should be, where he shrewdly is relying on the papal politics to his advantage – how are we to know now?
Having publicly admitted it’s a culture business, what is he really preaching?
On the other hand my Archbishop, whom I believe to be a papal darling and a favourite for the succession, has been pushing homosexualism here at home WHERE IT IS AGAINST THE CULTURE AND THE RELIGIONS! In such wise defying all of EG’s 4 maxims! Ambongo insists he doesn’t want to cause confusion in the culture but that is exactly what my Archbishop has imposed, forcing something just not there.
He is doing this in a circle of priests that never complain about anything as would be when people are swearing by the subsisting peace. The very same blank about Bergoglio that Rome had before his election (Benedict XVI – “My authority ends at the door”), covers him as well; except now Rome is Bergoglio and the C9 etc. including Ambongo.
My Archbishop runs like a dark horse in a dark race with those who know him.
There is no DIRECT mention of the 300 priests in the 10 points or as one of the study groups or as a theological consideration. Presumably it has something to do with “the participation of all and the authority of some”?
The 10 points do seem to be focusing in on bishops.
From my own “subsidiary” experience, could it be that there is a vision “from the Holy Spirit” for intensifying “local tradition” over “universal” while at the same time defining “universal” more upon the terms of “synodal”?
So “the Holy Spirit will be guiding” these priests in “trained harmony”?
Or, Bishops will receive some “Holy Spirit formation in guiding priests”?
And in the meantime ahead of these developments the German malformation has been allocated some stable ground on which they can legitimately encounter the Holy Spirit through the rest of the proceedings?
“This encounter will have the aim of listening to and valuing the experience parish priests live in their respective local Churches, and to offer them an opportunity to experience the dynamism of synodal work at a universal level,” the Vatican announcement states.
CRUX says the 300 priests are “boots on the ground” and the Germans got “reigned in” by “the Vatican in keeping with Canon Law”.
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2024/03/ahead-of-synod-meeting-priests-have-boots-on-the-ground-of-church
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2024/03/vatican-reigns-in-german-bishops-amid-dispute-over-national-reforms
The period of the Arian Crisis was a confluence a number of temptations to digression, anathema and dissipation: Paganists, Donatists, Pelagius, Origen and Arius and a little later Nestorius. In the Arian Crisis the secular authority would level exile sentences from bishops and impose exiles and decisions themselves.
Eusebius of Samosata, opponent of Arianism, refused to yield up records to the Arian Emperor Constantius II. When Eusebius offered instead both hands for amputation the Emperor withdrew.
Eusebius of Vercelli refused to join in the condemnation of Athanasius at the Milan council and was exiled by the same Constantius. This council was convoked at the request of the Pope with the aim of restoring Athanasius’ status. In one place of exile, Thebald, Upper Egypt, Eusebius was persecuted, harrassed and dragged through the streets.
The Milan Bishop’s name was Lucifer of Cagliari who also got exiled! Following the death of Constantius, Julian the Apostate gained the throne and he was responsible for restoring both men.
Bishop Meletius of Antioch opposed the Arians but suffered revolt within his See through intrigues from the Arian Eusebius of Caesarea; leading to Melitus being deposed and banished. This See was then thrown into turmoil.
That Eusebius of Caesarea started out with the Arians; turned out not to be truly Arian; supported pro-Arian factions; then formulated is own creed avoiding condemnation for Arianism but expressing his difficulty with homoousios. His faithsul disciple was Eusebius of Emesa whom St. Jerome describes as “standard bearer of the Arian faction” and a “rhetorical exhibionist”.
Eusebius of Nicomedia was the contemporary of Eusebius of Caesarea and close associate. He was very forceful in the expulsion of Athanasius. Later his behaviours matched that of Eusebius of Caesarea, in parallel denying the homoousios then later siging on with it but holding that Arius never held the views imputed to him. He led the resurgence in post-Nicene aggressive Arianism.
Of Constantine the Great’s sons and successors, Constantine II was Arian, Constantius II was Airan/semi-Arian and Constans I was Nicene. Julian of course was paganized.
Ambrose came to his bishopric in the midst of all of this.
I want to highlight the example of Hilary of Poitiers on his return from exile. That in the midst of the extremes of heretical disputation, scandal and luxury of heretic do-nothings, the possibilities for active ministry can not be missed.
‘ Hilary also attended several synods during his time in exile, including the council at Seleucia (359) which saw the triumph of the homoion party and the forbidding of all discussion of the divine substance. In 360, Hilary tried unsuccessfully to secure a personal audience with Constantius, as well as to address the council which met at Constantinople in 360. When this council ratified the decisions of Ariminum and Seleucia, Hilary responded with the bitter In Constantium, which attacked the Emperor Constantius as Antichrist and persecutor of orthodox Christians. Hilary’s urgent and repeated requests for public debates with his opponents, especially with Ursacius and Valens, proved at last so inconvenient that he was sent back to his diocese, which he appears to have reached about 361, within a very short time of the accession of Emperor Julian.
On returning to his diocese in 361, Hilary spent most of the first two or three years trying to persuade the local clergy that the homoion confession was merely a cover for traditional Arian subordinationism. Thus, a number of synods in Gaul condemned the creed promulgated at the Council of Ariminum (359).
In about 360 or 361, with Hilary’s encouragement, Martin, the future bishop of Tours, founded a monastery at Ligugé in his diocese.
In 364, Hilary extended his efforts once more beyond Gaul. He impeached Auxentius, bishop of Milan, a man high in the imperial favour, as heterodox. Emperor Valentinian I accordingly summoned Hilary to Milan to there maintain his charges. However, the supposed heretic gave satisfactory answers to all the questions proposed. Hilary denounced Auxentius as a hypocrite as he had been ignominiously expelled from Milan. Upon returning home, Hilary in 365, published the Contra Arianos vel Auxentium Mediolanensem liber, describing his unsuccessful efforts against Auxentius. He also, perhaps at a somewhat earlier date, published the Contra Constantium Augustum liber, accusing the deceased emperor as having been the Antichrist, a rebel against God, “a tyrant whose sole object had been to make a gift to the devil of that world for which Christ had suffered.” ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_of_Poitiers
Pope Francis is re-proposing Aquinas for the age. The assumption would therefore seem to be that the 4 “principles” in Evangelii are seamlessly compatible or otherwise reconcilable with Aquinas -whether through Thomism or something else; or that they will stand on their own merits outside Aquinas.
He has demarcated (below) four areas of focus. One would have supposed that a correct approach would have been an offering on the right teaching for each one, in as much as the trend to date has been to avoid -keep avoiding- the perennial magisterium. What has been developing is a tremendous babble of “personal insights”.
‘ He added that the Dominican theologian also demonstrated how grace elevates wounded human nature, with “rich implications for an understanding of the dynamics of a sound social order grounded in reconciliation, solidarity, justice, and mutual concern.” ‘
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/03/07/pope-francis-st-thomas-aquinas-is-needed-to-answer-todays-social-challenges/
From what I have seen already unfold in my Archdiocese, there is a movement to redefine everything in terms of “ecclesial community” and in particular the “ecclesial communities” peculiar to the locale; and locate the Christian identity and mission from these. If you read the ten points as a unit they seem to have in view how to flesh out further this movement and facilitate its expression, legality and progress. They mean to colonize, take over and rule everything.
Including schools.
By implication, “conversion” will necessarily “include” an “attestation” to those things and what they must yield; submitting to hierarchy who will guide it as a proof of true converting and the Holy Spirit. On these new premises it wouldn’t be right to say, “in line with that thinking” just so.
Further, apparently the Holy Spirit already intimated to certain souls that this is what the Holy Spirit wants “because its time has come”: the Holy Spirit was bringing about this very “kairos” in “the fullness of time”. My Archbishop gets very hot when he has to expound the kairos.
“It’s a kairos moment.”
The kairos is the widget that nuances, adapts, reorients or overturns the paradigm. Multi-taskish. This is underlying Traditionis Custodes, among all the others. The series -journey- that it travels through is marked by intermediate conclusion, suggestion, notionalizing and emotional baiting.
Compare to the 4 “principles” in Evangelii.
It seems someone wants the Opus Dei situation to be more ineluctable still.
Opus Dei is slowly throwing aside the founder’s original inspiration and the foundation laid by JPII for something else they have gone in search of with a certitude it will be found; so that when they find it, it help them avoid “being exceptional” but confirm their new certainty. They have singled out ONE Opus Dei norm to achieve this, unity with the Pope.
Had Ocariz said this during the time of Don Alvaro he would have been expelled. He knows it very well. Even more excruciating for them, Ocariz understands perfectly that the relatively recent legalism of “ecclesial community” was 1. not meant to express a spiritual revolution and 2. not meant to replace the true formatting already established for Opus Dei in the Holy Spirit.
My tenth installment, TEN ALL.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/08/24/for-pope-francis-the-liturgical-reform-is-irreversible/?unapproved=288758&moderation-hash=36a7160ad640b3089d858cb649eddea3#comment-288758
See Fr. Morello’s comments on Fr. Matthew Fox O.P., in the CWR link on Fr. Aidan Nichols. (I just discovered this [i.e. for the first time] after my post on kairos! Same thing with synthetic circularity -Beaulieu’s post about Grech in Extra! Extra!)
There are different “theologies” and “spiritualities” to do with paradigm shift and “kairos” and whatever other new terminologies are inducted. The right perspective on these is that they were up for judgment by the Church -like gay spiritulaity also; not for haphazard and piecemeal inclusion coerced by the Pontiff.
If you research the topic online you will see many different interpretations coming with these topics from Catholics as well as non-Catholics.
What my Archbishop’s background reading and socializing has been I simply do not know. It’s not possible for me to be attending his homilies and lectures consistently where he name-drops on occasion. His inter-religious circles have been very varied too.
Here is a perspective-analysis about a position set up by Paul Tillich. As you can see, this traces a long history. It probably goes back to Teilhard de Chardin and others.
‘ In succession, the three “Kairos” texts show how Tillich employs the idea of a different temporality and a temporality of difference in order to rethink the relation of religion and politics and to reassess a situation of crisis. As Weber’s reading of the Hebrew prophets and Barth’s interpretation of the New Testament reveal, diverse and complex discourses echo in the idea of kairos, allowing for the formulation of new ideas of intellectual politics. The three different versions of Tillich’s texts reflect the idea’s capacity to adapt to different circumstances: kairos can connote both idealism and realism; it can highlight spiritual as well as very material needs; it can be connected to the prophetic as well as the priestly. The sequence of the texts also allows us to explore the strong rhetorical and performative dimension of the idea, which is fundamental to its relevance in the context of the Weimar Republic. More than simply a descriptive category, kairos constitutes a strong appellative moment that is essential for the politics it engenders. Even though its rhetoric of urgency runs the risk of lapsing into disappointment, its gesture is complex enough to integrate an awareness of that risk, as Tillich’s later texts show.
At least potentially, the rhetoric of kairos can thus lead to a self-critique that does not spiral into abstraction, sustaining vehemence without forgetting its own limitations. ‘
Prophetic Criticism and the Rhetoric of Temporality: Paul Tillich’s Kairos Texts and Weimar Intellectual Politics – by Daniel Weidner
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1462317X.2020.1730558
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/03/31/keeping-the-faith-with-fr-aidan-nichols/