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.
[…]
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/