Readers, I hope, have read carefully the Filial Correction of the Roman Pontiff.
One point which, speaking only on my own behalf as an individual, I would like to make is this.
The Correctio represents a return to an era of robust and energetic debate between differing theological tendencies, or "schools", within the Church.
It is now very clear that we do indeed again have "schools" ... most conspicuously, a Bergoglianist Party ... in the Latin Church. Just as once we had the Franciscans pitted against the Dominicans ... Jesuits and Jansenists ....
The difference in our present situation is that one of these "schools" or parties - the Bergoglianist - is headed by the Roman Pontiff himself (or else by individuals who have worked themselves into the position of being able to manipulate the papal office). This is confusing; Christifideles are not accustomed to having to make the distinction between what the Pope does as the head of a party; and what he does by virtue of his Petrine Ministry. But we are left with no alternative except to work within this confusing situation. The pope is the boss, and this, clearly, is how he wants things.
Amoris laetitia was obviously not a binding Magisterial document. Papa Bergoglio himself made this near the beginning (Paragraph 3; this sentence, amusingly, appears to constitute one of the most lucid and clear propositional statements in the document!). I quote:
"Confirmare volumus non cunctas doctrinales, morales, vel pastorales disputationes per magisterii declarationes esse absolvendas."
My translation [and comments]: "We [notice the 'majestic', formal plural] wish to confirm [a formal, judicial term] that not all doctrinal, moral, or pastoral disputations [a term redolent of debates between different theological tendencies in the medieval Schools] must be resolved through declarations [a term with a long history in Magisterial documents] of the Magisterium."
As Cardinal Mueller when Prefect of the CDF made clear, if the pope wished to set aside what his predecessors had formally set in place, he would need to do so with clarity, and to do it explicitly. Pope Francis not only did not do this; he made clear, in the sentence I have just presented, that he had no intention of doing so.
Those portions of Amoris laetitia which have been demonstrated, at least prima facie, to contradict the Magisterium set in place by recent and earlier popes, are clearly nothing more than statements of the opinions held by (just) one party within the Church Militant here in Earth, the Bergoglianist Party.
The Correctio filialis takes up the implied invitation by the Holy Father to enter into these disputationes about questions which, in the professed view of him and his party, are unresolved.
And the Correctio participates in this stimulating dialogue by making the counterclaim that particular questions which the Bergoglianist Party regards as still open have in fact already been resolved by the Church's irreformable Magisterium.
Nothing complicated about all that, is there?
25 September 2017
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Perfectly wholesome faith and reasoning. Thank you for having the guts to stand up for Jesus' commands in Matt. 9:19.
Meanwhile - in a related story - it is reported that the Head of the Jesuits re-itererated that the "holy tape recorder" has still not been found.
Would to God that this post recieves a wide circulation...as already, I fear, the mediavmachine has grossly misunderstood what the Correctio is actually about.
When thinking about the present incumbent in Rome, I am reminded of the remark allegedly made by Cardinal Spellman after the election of John XXIII: "He's not a real Pope; he should be selling bananas." But no, I am not and never shall be a sedevacantist.
I don't think that sentence means what you think it means. I think it means that we can agree to disagree on doctrine and morals, and that is not a good or true statement.
But it seems to me that Cardinal Mueller is wrong. The Pope is quite capable of setting aside that which has previously been formally set in place without resorting to the clarity of explicit declarations. He will simply ignore it, and instead impose a culture where future practice will be guided by his unwritten law of “mercy.” The old ordinances will simply fade away.
This is a new age. Issues are no longer decided by school debates swapping reasoned arguments, but by the coercion of social justice warriors working up the mob to impose the liberal worldview. And I am sorry Father, but the correctio is not participating in any stimulating dialogue. The Bergoggers are not dialoguing with you. They have another agenda.
In these times it’s hard not to entertain a feeling of déjà vu – with a twist.
In 1968 and later many clerics and laypersons went public with their objections to Humanae Vitae and ‘corrections’ of Pope Paul VI.
In 1968, the Pope was right and the objectors were wrong. Today, the Christfideles are right and the Pope is … Misleading…? Confused…?
Or, in a word: wrong!
I agree that the Bergoglianist agenda is about praxis, not doctrine. That is the meaning of his motto in Evangelii gaudium: "reality is greater than ideas." What people do trumps doctrine, which will either change or become irrelevant.
I took our host's remark about stimulating dialogue to be more than a little sarcastic.
Fr Hunwick, deep and sincere thanks for your signature. A while back you shared that until the last days of your life you would work tirelessly in defence of the Catholic faith. This you have done in a splendid exemplary manner.
If only your framework of ‘two schools’ were correct. I fear the situation in the Church is rather one of ‘two spirits’. Two incompatible spirits. The ‘Bergoglians’ care nothing for doctrine. They make a virtue of slogans rather than reason. Their public utterances are not meant as contributions to the clarification of disputed questions. They are carefully crafted to ensnare the unwary. Without the vestige of a blush, they can pontificate absurd nonsense and present it as emanating from the Holy Spirit. Pope Benedict is their bete noire. On matters of faith morals and liturgy, he could shred the ‘Bergoglians’ one by one or all together. He left them all with only their teeth to gnash. JP and Benedict rejected completely both communion for the divorced and remarried and the primacy of the local Church over the Universal. They also, in solidarity with Divine revelation from the beginning, rejected homosexual lifestyle. Bergoglians accept and promote all three. Without any correction from Pope Francis. For Bergoglians their version of Catholicism is irreversible. They will never recant, not even if a future Pope or Council were to command it. They enabled their version of Catholicism shamelessly albeit clandestinely during the Pontificate of JP and Benedict. Now they enable it with barefaced braggadocio. They have no intention whatsoever to engage in dialogue with Catholics who refuse to accept Pope Francis’ agenda. How many ‘Surprises’ are they away from apostasy? Time will tell. My guess is that we will find out sometime soon. Whatever may be next on their agenda, we could all sleep a little sounder if we knew that the majority of orthodox bishops were asleep in Gethsemane, worn out because of the courageous efforts they had made for the defence of the faith. Alas, too many of them are blissfully asleep in their beds, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the Bergoglians are very busy burning Rome. Maranatha
If "reality is greater than ideas", Then let us each be about our business and live out the traditional orthodox Catholic Faith as extremely as we are able.
Saint Michael the Archangel defend us in battle........
Did anyone ask Pope...er....Emeritus....er.....former Pope.... Benedict if he would like to sign the Correction?
Interesting. I hadn't thought of Bergoglio as head of a party, but that's obviously how he sees himself.
I usually agree with you, but your reading of paragraph 3 of AL is clearly in error. The Pope here DOES NOT SAY that AL is not magisterial. Far from it. He is saying that as a general proposition, not all doctrinal questions must be settled by the Vatican. The quality of a document as magisterial or not magisterial is governed by its content. So relying on paragraph 3 is hardly appropriate.
Mr. Louth: I think your analysis is quite right, that the Bergoglians have no intention of engaging in scholarly dialogue. It is nevertheless important that the case for traditional orthodoxy be made in the traditional way. This having been done, and the remonstrance having been ignored, orthodox believers have every moral right to create their own 'facts on the ground' (even if not in the anarchical and vulgar mode preferred by the Bergoglians). The SSPX has been doing this pretty effectively for some decades. More and merrier. Like a mighty army moves the church of God.
Considering the fact that Pope Francis has clearly intervened in favour his party in his role as Successor of St. Peter by means of his letter to the Buenos Aires bishops, which has been published on the Vatican website, it is not clear that he himself has this distinction of roles in mind and follows it. I don't know if it has been published in Acta Apostolica Sedis. Rather, the contrary seems to be clear. Besides, it is not the mission of the Church Magisterium to take sides in disputes among theologians, nor is it part of the job of the Petrine Ministry to promote debates on issues already resolved by the previous Magisterium. This fact is very clear in the Council of Trent, where the theological schools (Thomistic, Scotist, Augustinian) were present. The job of the Magisterium has traditionally been that of the referee.
Responding to ffcfcfcfcf --
I don't think you understand what Father has said (and of course he can correct me if I don't understand him either). I don't think Father is arguing that AL is not magisterial. There's no question that an apostolic exhortation is a magisterial document. However, an a.e. is never the kind of document in which one finds magisterial declarations that definitively resolve doctrinal, moral, or pastoral disputations. And indeed AL contains no such declarations. The statement toward the beginning of AL which Father quotes says as much, and is a clear statement of intent. AL is the pope's counsel and opinion for the bishops on very important matters -- but it makes no authoritative declarations and makes no changes to Church law. That's not to say AL can be ignored or belittled as of no importance (it's obviously tremendously important, hence the need for the Filial Correction), but it's not even an encyclical, let alone an apostolic constitution or a motu proprio. We may not grant AL greater authority or weight than the pope himself has granted it.
This so-called correction is immensely scandalous, and grossly inconsistent. Where were these critics of a reigning Pope in 1986, or during the other theological and pastoral enormities of JP2 ? It is an inverted favouritism to critivise the HF, while tacitly claiming that the scandalous acts of his predecessors are doctrinally unobjectionable.
There is so much wrong with this atrocious “correction” that one scarcely knows where to begin.
Post a Comment