Vatican City, Jun 29, 2020 / 08:30 am (CNA).- Here is the full text of Pope Francis’ homily on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul delivered June 29, 2020 at the Basilica of St. Peter, and checked against delivery.
On the feast of the two Apostles of this city, I would like to share with you two key words: unity and prophecy.
Unity. We celebrate together two very different individuals: Peter, a fisherman who spent his days amid boats and nets, and Paul, a learned Pharisee who taught in synagogues. When they went forth on mission, Peter spoke to Jews, and Paul to pagans. And when their paths crossed, they could argue heatedly, as Paul is unashamed to admit in one of his letters (cf. Gal 2:11). In short, they were two very different people, yet they saw one another as brothers, as happens in close-knit families where there may be frequent arguments, but unfailing love. Yet the closeness that joined Peter and Paul did not come from natural inclinations, but from the Lord. He did not command us to like one another, but to love one another. He is the one who unites us, without making us all alike. He unites us in our differences.
Today’s first reading brings us to the source of this unity. It relates how the newly born Church was experiencing a moment of crisis: Herod was furious, a violent persecution had broken out, and the Apostle James had been killed. And now Peter had been arrested. The community seemed headless, everyone fearing for his life. Yet at that tragic moment no one ran away, no one thought about saving his own skin, no one abandoned the others, but all joined in prayer. From prayer they drew strength, from prayer came a unity more powerful than any threat. The text says that, “while Peter was kept in prison, the Church prayed fervently to God for him” (Acts 12:5). Unity is the fruit of prayer, for prayer allows the Holy Spirit to intervene, opening our hearts to hope, shortening distances and holding us together at times of difficulty.
Let us notice something else: at that dramatic moment, no one complained about Herod’s evil and his persecution. No one insulted Herod — and we are so used to insulting those who hold responsibility. It is pointless, even tedious, for Christians to waste their time complaining about the world, about society, about everything that is not right. Complaints change nothing. Let us remember that complaints are the second door closed to the Holy Spirit, as I said on the day of Pentecost: the first is narcissism, the second discouragement, the third pessimism. Narcissism takes you to the mirror, to continually look at yourself; discouragement to complaints; pessimism to the dark, in the dark. These are the attitudes that close the door to the Holy Spirit. Those Christians did not cast blame; they prayed. In that community, no one said: “If Peter had been more careful, we would not be in this situation.” No one. Peter, as a human, had reasons to be criticized, but no one criticized him. They did not talk about Peter; they prayed for him. They did not talk about Peter behind his back, but they spoke to God. We today can ask: “Are we protecting our unity with prayer? The unity of the Church? Are we praying for one another?” What would happen if we prayed more and complained less? … with speech that was a little more calm. The same thing that happened to Peter in prison: now as then, so many closed doors would be opened, so many chains that bind would be broken. And we would be amazed, like the girl who — seeing Peter at the gate — did not open it, but ran inside, amazed with the joy of seeing Peter. Let us ask for the grace to be able to pray for one another. Saint Paul urged Christians to pray for everyone, especially those who govern (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-3). “But this ruler is to be …,” and the descriptions are many. I will not say them because this is not the time nor the place to say the qualifications that are heard against the rulers. Let God judge them, but let us pray for those who govern. Let us pray; they need prayer. This is a task that the Lord has entrusted to us. Are we carrying it out? Or do we simply talk, criticize, and do nothing? God expects that when we pray we will also be mindful of those who do not think as we do, those who have slammed the door in our face, those whom we find it hard to forgive. Only prayer unlocks chains, only prayer paves the way to unity.
Today we bless the pallia to be bestowed on the dean of the College of Cardinals and the metropolitan archbishops named in the last year. The pallium is a sign of the unity between the sheep and the Shepherd who, like Jesus, carries the sheep on his shoulders, so as never to be separated from it. Today too, in accordance with a fine tradition, we are united in a particular way with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Peter and Andrew were brothers, and, whenever possible, we exchange fraternal visits on our respective feast days. We do so not only out of courtesy, but as a means of journeying together towards the goal that the Lord points out to us: that of full unity. Today they were unable to come due to the problem of travel due to the coronavirus, but when I went down to venerate the remains of Peter, I felt in my heart my beloved brother Bartholomew. They are here with us.
The second word is prophecy. Unity and prophecy. The Apostles were challenged by Jesus. Peter heard Jesus’ question: “Who do you say I am?” (cf. Mt 16:15). At that moment he realized that the Lord was not interested in what others thought, but in Peter’s personal decision to follow him. Paul’s life changed after a similar challenge from Jesus: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4). The Lord shook Paul to the core: more than just knocking him to the ground on the road to Damascus, he shattered Paul’s illusion of being respectably religious. As a result, the proud Saul turned into Paul. Paul, a name that means “small”. These challenges and reversals are followed by prophecies: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Mt 16:18); and, for Paul: “He is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Prophecy is born whenever we allow ourselves to be challenged by God, not when we are concerned to keep everything quiet and under control. It doesn’t come from my thoughts, it doesn’t come from my closed heart. It is born if we allow ourselves to be challenged by God. When the Gospel overturns certainties, prophecy arises. Only someone who is open to God’s surprises can become a prophet. And there they are: Peter and Paul, prophets who look to the future. Peter is the first to proclaim that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). Paul, who considers his impending death: “From now on there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord will award to me” (2 Tim 4:8).
Today we need prophecy, real prophecy: not fast talkers who promise the impossible, but testimonies that the Gospel is possible. What is needed are not miraculous shows — it hurts me when I hear it said: “We want a prophetic Church.” Well, what do you do for the Church to be prophetic? We need lives that show the miracle of God’s love. Not forcefulness, but forthrightness. Not palaver, but prayer. Not speeches, but service. Do you want a prophetic Church? Start serving and be silent. Not theory, but testimony. We are not to become rich, but rather to love the poor. We are not to save up for ourselves, but to spend ourselves for others. To seek not the approval of this world — that of being good with everyone — no, this is not prophecy, but we need the joy of the world to come. Not better pastoral plans that seem to have their own efficiency, as if they were sacraments, efficient pastoral projects, no, but we need pastors who offer their lives: lovers of God. That is how Peter and Paul preached Jesus, as men in love with God. At his crucifixion, Peter did not think about himself, but about his Lord, and, considering himself unworthy of dying like Jesus, asked to be crucified upside down. Before his beheading, Paul thought only of offering his life; he wrote that he wanted to be “poured out like a libation” (2 Tim 4:6). That was prophecy. Not words. That was prophecy, the prophecy that changes history.
Dear brothers and sisters, Jesus prophesied to Peter: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church”. There is a similar prophecy for us too. It is found in the last book of the Bible, where Jesus promises his faithful witnesses “a white stone, on which a new name is written” (Rev 2:17). Just as the Lord turned Simon into Peter, so he is calling each one of us, in order to make us living stones with which to build a renewed Church and a renewed humanity. There are always those who destroy unity and stifle prophecy, yet the Lord believes in us and he asks you: “You, do you want to be a builder of unity? Do you want to be a prophet of my heaven on earth?” Brothers and Sisters, let us be challenged by Jesus, and find the courage to say to him: “Yes, I do!”
[…]
As long as we remain apart from communion as a body fully united in doctrine and practice, we belie the unitive element of the Eucharist, if we simply engage in intercommunion for sake of a conceptual unity understood as friendship we divest the reality of unity realized in specificity, that which distinguishes one baptism, one faith, one Church.
Insofar as the Orthodox with whom we are so close in belief and practice, the theological solution of one faith cannot be the mitigation of key doctrine, in specific, that centers on one specific belief, the identity of the Person of Christ who shares full and complete divinity with the other two persons of the Holy Trinity. That contentious doctrine is the Filioque clause, which clearly and unambiguously defines the co-equality of the three Persons. To remain in denial of that doctrine is to diminish the divinity of the Person Jesus of Nazareth.
Fr, all three Persons in the Trinity are one in substance and undivided. You are correct in stating that the Orthodox churches reject the Filioque.
However, many Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome, such as Ruthenian Byzantines, omit the Filioque clause when they recite the Creed. Byzantine Catholics most certainly do not diminish the divinity of the Person Jesus of Nazareth. Rather, they emphasize His divinity by focusing on the Resurrection.
Here’s a good article I found. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://east2west.org/sp_faq/filioque/&ved=2ahUKEwiluvyC84aKAxWwIjQIHX1qDbYQFnoECDMQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw2j4MQaCEWh7lt4Eh1OHKlK
Right. In addition, the Orthodox separate themselves from Roman Catholicism by taking different positions on issues other than the Filioque…1) Peter’s Primacy, 2) Priestly celibacy, and more.
Yes. Thanks for your response. Eastern Rite Catholics remain united with the Church on the basis that they do not repudiate the long held doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. Unfortunately, the Orthodox do not simply refuse to state explicitly that Christ imparts the Holy Spirit. They effectively deny it.
For a background of that explicitly stated doctrine within Catholicism I list the following: Tertullian 216 AD against Praxeas. Origen 229. Maximus the Confessor 254. Gregory Thaumaturgus [the wonder worker] 265. Hillary of Poitiers 357. Basil the Great 375. Ambrose of Milan 371. Gregory of Nyssa 382. The Athanasian Creed 400. Augustine 408. Cyril of Alexandria 424. Gregory the Great 447. Toledo 447. At Toledo Spain’s hierarchy contested Arians who denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from Christ. There should be no objection whatsoever to the attachment of the Clause to the Nicaean Credo.
Correction: Pope Gregory the Great affirmed the filioque in his Dialogues dated 593.
Yes, as an Eastern Orthodox I also find it quite amazing (and sad) when Roman Catholics attack Orthodox theology/ tradition like the Filioque issue, married priests etc. while having their own Byzantine CATHOLICS who do just what we do.
I am quite sure it would be very enriching, for the Roman Catholics, to learn more about their Byzantine brethren.
Anna, the issue with the Orthodox is not that the Latin Church seeks to impose the Filioque Clause. Rather it’s that certain Orthodox refuse to accept Rome’s decision to include the clause. Even if it relates solely to the Latin Church. This was addressed by John Paul II:
“In 1995 the Holy Father asked the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to reconsider the issue. At his request, they issued a marvelous document entitled: ‘The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity – the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions’. This document acknowledged the Eastern understanding of the Father as the source of the Trinity as being definitive for the Catholic Church. The Orthodox were concerned that Catholics claimed that the Father and Son BOTH were the source of the Trinity. This document puts that fear to rest” (Dr Anthony Dragani).
While a monarchical understanding of the Father is acceptable, we cannot presume the Person of Jesus of Nazareth is not co-equal with the Father.
I read somewhere that Romans interpret it as the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, whereas Byzantines look at it as the Holy Spirit proceeding FROM the Father THROUGH the Holy Spirit. I do NOT know if that is actual, official Eastern Catholic doctrine/teaching though. Nevertheless, the Filioque clause issue is not the main source of division between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, both East and West. It’l seems to be the Immaculate Conception and the Papacy.
I meant to say Holy Spirit proceeding FROM the Father THROUGH the Son, not thru the Holy Spirit. My error. Like I said, I don’t know if it’s official Eastern Catholic Churches doctrine or not.
Ultimately Anna in respect to the Trinity there is only one God, be he the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
Fr Peter,
You are saying nothing new to me.
PS After worshiping with Roman Catholics for ten years I recognize the old myself in you (by “you” I mean not just you but many Roman Catholics). Years ago, I was sure that Roman Catholics are somewhat heretical/incorrect. After years within the Roman Catholic Church (but remaining an Orthodox) I can see how presumptuous I was. Even if I still do not think some things are not necessary/disagreeable, I can see their logic. My point is that many Roman Catholics are full of false ideas about Orthodoxy just as most Eastern Orthodox – about Catholics. Not all ideas are entirely false but they somehow are perceived differently when one is inside. You cannot understand what our (Orthodox) thoughts are unless you worship with us for some time.
I think I expressed this thought before, of a necessity to understand the other via participating in the Liturgy/Mass of the other tradition. When one is worshiping God, he cannot exercise his pride and think “oh, it is all wrong”. Thus, he perceives the other tradition from a lower point and it enables him to understand better. It is only when one begins loving the other tradition he begins perceiving its truth.
Thoughtful and kind Anna.
Nicaea is perceived as the definitive profession of the faith. Christ’s divine identity is defined in the words, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. That definition was broken when it was declared in the East that the Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father, not from the Son. And the reason why it was absolutely required to restore its meaning.
Although John’s Gospel confirms Everything that the Father has, has been given over to the Son, and everything that the Son has, is possessed by the Father. Repudiate that and we repudiate that the Son reveals the Father in his fullness, that we might seek elsewhere to find the fullness of who the Father is. Thus, we experience today in the Synod the search, listening for a new revelation from the Holy Spirit. That is the compounding error.
Nicaea (325 A.D.), Constantinople (381 A.D.), and then Chaldcedon (451 A.D.) were about the nature of the Triune One and the fully divine and human nature, both, in the Person of Jesus Christ. After one and a half millennia, the stress test today is about the nature of Man–and winking at the Secularist zeitgeist. Whereupon, and about a joint celebration, the Orthodox Churches are already incensed by Fiducia Supplicans.
From an Anglo Catholic convert: “Between the idea and the reality, between the motion and the act, falls the shadow” (T.S. Eliot).
True regarding the successive Councils Peter. Although in light of that is the Filioque Clause a red herring? Should the Latin Church remove it from the Credo?
My comment is not about the filioque, one way of the other.
In any event, the filioque was added long after the earliest councils, maybe in in the 6th century (says Wikipedia). The filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son”) was present in the ancient texts and–I have read–put forth by the Synod of Aachen in 809, and introduced in Rome in 1014. It was adopted by the Greeks and the Latins at the Councils of Lyon (II, 1274), and Florence (1438-1445) where it was initially agreed that the Greek “through the Son” did not differ essentially from “from the Son”, but the Greeks have since disagreed, spurred in part by the earlier destruction of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders in 1204…
As theologian Henry Ford has remarked, “History is just one damn thing after another.”
Hmm. Celebrating a 1,700-year anniversary.
Isn’t that the very definition of backwardist? I thought that Bergoglio said Synodolatry was supposed to eliminate all that ancient stuff and replace it with now-a-go-go Catholique hipness.
Oh, Holy Father, do you hear yourself to any degree? Being with Fiducia Supplicans, and begin numbering everything else to understand how your personal efforts have destroyed any hope of a “unity” at this time with our Eastern brothers and sisters.
Father, I have followed the old advice to observe your actions rather than listen to your words. Your path is one of purposeful confusion and eventual destruction.
I will hold the Church instituted by Jesus Christ and ignore all those that think they can destroy the Son of God’s work.
A fine article defending the Filioque was published by Tim Staples in the Catholic Answers website in 2016. It’s a very worthwhile read.
Over and above the “Filioque Controversy,” what I find very troubling about the Eastern Orthodox Church is its rejection of Our Lord’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. While paying some lip service to indissolubility, this sacred teaching is viewed and taught only as a highly recommended ideal, and the sinful practice of divorce and remarriage, even multiple times, is permitted in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Eastern Orthodox claim that the Pope did not have the authority to approve of the Filioque, which is wrong but at least debatable to some degree. At the same time, the Eastern Orthodox do not have any authority to reject Jesus’ teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, which is not debatable, yet the Eastern Orthodox continue to act in defiance of what Jesus teaches and the Catholic Church upholds. This is even a larger stumbling block to reunification, and there can be no compromise or word manipulation that might occur regarding the Filioque when it comes to the necessity of prohibiting marriage and divorce.
What is the likelihood at the present time that the Eastern Orthodox will admit the glaring error of their rationalizing Jesus’ teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, and also accept what the Catholic Church rightly upholds? And if they will not do this, reunification without it should not even be considered.
Tom Flanders: A most critical point. Why? Because the Pauline corpus tells us that marriage is a reflection of Christ’s relationship with His Church. It is a spousal relationship that, like marriage, is permanent (unto death), faithful, and meant to be fruitful. Christian marriage is not a secular institution; it is part of the Divine plan for man to live out his vocation. Christ and His Church are one. In it, there is no division. The marital partners are one and cannot be separated once united.
Deacon Peitler: Thanks for providing an unnecessary description of our Church’s basic teaching on indissolubility. The critical point is not the teaching per se, but that the Eastern Orthodox view with favor the same thing we teach, including some of the basics you provided, but only as a highly recommended ideal that allows for some exceptions not recognized by our Church.
In fact, you could provide a detailed thesis on the Catholic Church’s teaching on indissolubility and the Eastern Orthodox Church would accept all or most of it, but only as the ideal and not definitive so as to permit exceptions, and this also makes reunification problematic, which is, once more, the critical point.
Regarding your last paragraph, the Orthodox rightly point out that the abuse of the Roman Catholic “marriage tribunals” points out our hypocrisy in claiming adherence to the Gospel. (I have a family member who has had no fewer than THREE Catholic “marriages.”) And to that, we can now add Fiducia Supplicans and official approval for blessings of homosexual “couples.” And this has been going on for a long time. I remember a priest telling my high school class (in the 1970s) that he blessed homosexual couples. Why should the Orthodox take us seriously when we talk about marriage and sexual morality?
The Eastern Orthodox do not rightly point out any hypocrisy in Church teaching when some abuses of the teaching take place. This is the Protestant argument in support of the Reformation (i.e. rebellion) regarding abuses involving indulgences that you have now adopted and promoted as well regarding any abuses in marriage tribunals.
There cannot be 3 Catholic “marriages” if the first 2 were rightly declared null and void, though your anecdotal example is a sad one because it has led to you adopting a false understanding that there was abuse in the tribunals, and if so, this means a teaching is wrong or not to be taken seriously. Even if precisely the case as you point out, if a marriage tribunal fails to do its job, it is NOT the fault of Church teaching; it’s a failure of the individuals in not properly exercising their office. Also, such failures do not make the teaching hypocritical or wrong, nor do they lend any credence for any group to separate itself from our Lord’s Church.
Fiducia Supplicans is a bad document and rightly condemned by the Eastern Orthodox and others, but once again, this has nothing to do with our Lord’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage that the Catholic Church gets right while the Eastern Orthodox gets woefully wrong, and officially approves of adultery in the form of divorce and remarriage. And this has been going on in the Eastern Orthodox Church for a very long time.
Lastly, the Orthodox should take the Catholic Church seriously because they are outside the One True Church, and we teach the truth about the indissolubility of marriage while the Orthodox continue to defy our Lord and defend their sinful ways by not correcting their sins. And then apologists for the Eastern Orthodox Church will, in prideful Lutherian fashion, point out some abuses of Church teaching and jump to the sinful conclusion that because there is abuse in the Catholic Church, the Orthodox have every right to ignore the correct teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and promote adultery in the process.
I am not sure which of your paragraphs is more laughable. The second? Or the third? John Senior used to say “If Rembert Weakland is inside the Church, how can we positively declare that anyone else is outside the Church?” Jorge Bergoglio has taken that observation to another level. I would listen to most Orthodox bishops on a matter of importance to Christians before I would listen to Pope Francis. That is how bad things are.
When do you plan to disobey Jesus and join an Orthodox Church? I hope you won’t do this, but rationalizations and irrelevancies abound in your comments, all for the purpose of promoting the Orthodox over Christ’s One True Church. Because of your rationalizing approach that also features adolescent dismissals instead of more serious engagement, unless the good Lord provides you with some better reasoning skills and wisdom in general, you are pathetically deluding yourself into soon effectuating the more problematic rationalization of wrongly leaving our Lord’s Church for the schismatic Orthodox. That is truly how bad things are.
Bartholomew is constantly looking for ways to assert himself and his agenda and party, all partly shrouded, already seen to be full of misgivings and their own promotions; and, I believe, this is not the way for the Church to follow.
At the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) the Orthodox Churches (and Western “ecclesial communities”) were invited as OBSERVERS. In 2025 at a joint celebration with the Orthodox, should we wonder who else might be invited, now—vaguely synodally?
Might we compare with the different World Congress of Religions (convened in Chicago on 9/11!) at which were delivered 124 papers of all sorts, even “Extracts from the Koran”. And, including six Catholics, especially CARDINAL GIBBONS with his “Needs of Humanity Supplied by the Catholic Religion,” from which:
“The religion of Christ imparts to us not only a sublime conception of God, but also a rational idea of man and of his relations to his Creator. Before the coming of Christ man was a riddle and a mystery to himself. He knew not whence he came nor whither he was going. He was groping in the dark. All he knew for certain was that he was passing through a brief phase of existence. The past and the future were enveloped in a mist which the light of philosophy was unable to penetrate. Our Redeemer has dispelled the cloud and enlightened us regarding our origin and destiny and the means of attaining it. He has rescued man from the frightful labyrinth of error in which paganism had involved him.” (As with Gibbons, the very same message reaffirmed by VATICAN II: “Christ the Lord…by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to himself and makes his supreme calling clear,” Gaudium et Spes, n. 22).
NICAEA in 325 A.D., the first of 21 ecumenical councils, was convened to examine—and then clearly exclude (non-inclusive!)—Arianism as the opening wedge in those days for reintroducing pagan broadmindedness into the sacramental Mystical Body of Christ, himself.
SUMMARY: With Nicaea, Gibbons and Vatican II—how to clearly proclaim Christ in the Church universal, but without rendering ambiguous its defining contours? The Apostolic Succession and “hierarchical communion,” valid Holy Orders, the unity of faith and reason, and that sort of stuff.
World Congress of Religions in 1893 (September 11), at the same time and place as the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago (May 5 to October 31).
The neopagan “Mayan Rite” – or whatever you want to call it – is just Bergoglio’s latest assault on the Faith. Pope Francis has set back ecumenism for centuries. No self-respecting Orthodox would take him seriously in any theological or dogmatic discussion. One of my Orthodox friends just laughs and rightly mocks the entire Roman circus we are sadly witnessing.
“Pope” Francis + World Ecumenism + Synodal Church + Roman Catholicism
= One World Religion
Do the math.
Hyper Ecumenism by Francis is just another contrivance for him to prove he’s the greatest pope in history, willing to take bold steps that no one ever did before because they were not as great as he is.
And the statement of the Cardinal:
“Christians are not persecuted because they are Catholic, Lutheran or Anglican, but because they are Christians.”
Not true historically and especially not true in present times. Francis persecutes Catholics for being Catholic.
Ultimatly the Valtorta debate is secondary…there are too many bi bles..Christians need to sort this And as regards translations the Holy Spirit needs to be involved and the faithful need to know it. The language you think in changes your thinking so what is the best language to think like God? While you ponder attend to the 7 Mercies.
There is a wicked part of me that sometimes hopes one of the many Hollywood celebrities that get special treatment for a private audience will convert the great ecumenist to scientology prompting his resignation from the papacy.
I would point out to Flanders and Williams, above, also to Anna, Orthodox can not justify their defections on faith on any basis, whether by reference to hypocrisy and/or weaknesses, etc., of members of the Roman Church on indissolubility of marriage. Or unhappy parts of history. And so on. Getting your back up, turning 2 wrongs into right, going round in circles, gratuitous jamming of the other side, leap-frogging – are among the varied problems blocking reconciliation.
That’s like one person arguing with himself in a mirror to try on different animated expressions so everything looks just right and sustains pleasant memory.