I came across this item belatedly... Never too late, it provides a broad historical perspective for looking at the PRESENT CRISIS...
Every 500 years, the Church
faces an epochal crisis -
Is this the worst yet?
There are reasons to believe that we are now
entering the biggest crisis the Church has faced
September 6, 2018
There is a fairly common recognition among historians that every 500 years the Church has faced some kind of horrendous crisis. This is no kind of Nostradamian numerical prophecy, but a noticeable, rough pattern.
Around the first 500-year mark of the Church, the West was being crushed under the political implosion of the corrupt Roman Empire and the onslaught of barbarian invasions. Hence began the Dark Ages, wherein the Church did well just to survive in the following centuries.
The next crisis bubbled up around the year 1000. The papacy had been deeply corrupted by Italian nobles in the previous century — so much so that the historians refer to this period of papal venality in the 900s as “The Pornocracy.” A string of good popes, Cistercian reformers, helped draw the Church out of its own mire in the 11th and 12th centuries.
And then, of course, there was the Reformation, commencing in 1517. Last fall I published a book marking the half-millennium anniversary of the Reformation,
The Reformation 500 Years Later: 12 Things You Need To Know.
One of the things that especially Catholics needed to know is how bad the popes and cardinals had been in the century leading up to Luther — otherwise the Protestant reaction to ecclesiastical corruption 500 years ago might seem like an unwarranted, peevish reaction of a disgruntled monk, Martin Luther.
And now, here we are in 2018, right on time, 500 years after the Reformation, steeped in another major crisis. As the depth and breadth of the ecclesiastical corruption now unfolds before us, the question is not whether we are in a crisis, but how bad a crisis we happen to be in.
It’s big. Perhaps the biggest so far. Why?
The current systematic embrace of sexual disorder among the bishops and cardinals — even those in the Vatican itself — creates theological disorder. Sexual scandal leading up to the Reformation was sordid enough, but it did not then result in attendant theological malformation.
But things are different now because all too many in the hierarchy desire a fundamental change in the Church’s doctrines on sexuality. Grace builds on nature, the supernatural on the natural.
If those in charge of guarding doctrine embrace sexual disorder, theological disorder must be bent to fit. Sexual libertinism needs theological liberalism as its theological complement.
This connection isn’t difficult to understand.
- Marriage is the natural union between male and female — a perfection of their distinct, complementary sexuality.
- In biblical terms, it is the union of male and female that manifests the fullness of the image of God.
- In the Old Testament, God defines His relationship to Israel in terms of bridegroom and bride, and i the New Testament, Jesus is the bridegroom Incarnate, the husband of the Church, His Bride.
These are not mere metaphors, but deep, real connections between God’s mode of redemption and human nature.
One cannot, therefore distort natural sexuality without distorting our understanding of the Christ’s relationship to the Church.
If there are any doubts about this, read the Pennsylvania report. Here we find priests sodomizing altar boys and then presiding over the holy sacrifice of the Mass, fishing for prey in the confessional, posing boys naked as Jesus on the cross and taking pictures, using gold crosses to mark out victims for other priests, and using holy water to wash out the mouths of their victims after forcing them into oral sex.
No one can go from orthodoxy to sacrilege and blasphemy without passing through heresy. Those posing as orthodox but engaging in these activities are not an exception to the rule, but an even more pernicious form of hypocrisy that destroys from within what it purports to defend from without.
There is another reason to believe that we are now enduring the worst of the 500-year Church crises:
The Catholic Church has always been universal in aim, but the world is now a cosmopolitan whole. Therefore, the Church has far more comprehensive reach than it has ever had historically, and that means that the ecclesial rot has a more comprehensive reach as well. We are truly experiencing a worldwide scandal as a result.
And yet another.
The last 500 year crisis, the Reformation, split apart the Church — seemingly irreparably. But it was a crisis that took place within a still-Christianized culture, and therefore the various Protestant reform movements still had as their aim to remain Christian — indeed, to become even more deeply Christian.
Pushed by these rival claimants who were all striving to be the true church, the Catholic Counter-Reformation had to reform and rebuild orthodoxy to survive, if even sometimes for political reasons.
But today, we live in a largely secularized culture, where the pressure from without is for the Church to shed orthodoxy, and that pressure is matched by secularizing forces deeply embedded within the Church.
Protestants are all pretty much in the same situation as Catholics, struggling to stay afloat in the rising secular flood, so they can be of little help. To make matters worse, the scandals now besetting the Catholic Church all serve as fuel for increasing the secularization of the culture.
So, this is a big crisis, arguably the biggest the Church has faced. That is why half-measures, bishops’ committees, solemn and airy declarations and stonewalling must stop. The Church must be scoured, and it seems that the laity must take the lead in the cleanup.
At the end of my book
The Reformation 500 Years Later, I argued that the two greatest enemies facing all Christians were Secularism and radical Islam. I
If I had waited a year to publish and known about the depth of the scandals, I would have named another.
In my naivete of severely under-estimating Macchiabergoglian machinations (my neologism for Macchiavellian as practised by Bergoglio), I thought the NEXT GREAT BERGOGLIO SCANDAL (everything is so negatively hyperbolic about this pontificate one has to refer to its milestones in CAPITAL LETTERS) was to be its agreement with China. How wrong I was!
Here he is no,w pre-empting any possible objections to his next rigged-up synodal assembly by issuing a new Apostolic Constitution no less to fit the Synod of Bishops to the mold we saw used in the recent 'family synods', and worse, to make sure that whatever a synodal assembly convoked by him formally promulgates will be the equivalent of papal magisterium.
A number of Vatican commentators quickly glommed on to the appalling import and implications of all this. Steve Skojec's initial reaction incorporates those of Christopher Altieri and Marco Tosatti, among others.
New Apostolic Constitution appears to formalize
Bergogio's hijacking of the synodal process
While the eyes of most who follow Church news remain fixated on the
near-constant drumbeat of developments on Clerical Abuse Redux
a new papal document launches another likely time bomb.
by Steve Skojec
September 18, 2018
This morning, Pope Francis issued the Apostolic Constitution Epicopalis Communio (EC) – “Episcopal Communion” – which aims to “reform” the synodal process. The document, available thus far only in Italian, makes changes that should be of familiar concern to anyone who paid attention to the 2014 & 2015 synods on the Family.
From Chris Altieri’s commentary today at the Catholic Herald:
The role of the General Secretary appears greatly increased and his powers expanded, along with those of the General Secretariat. These expanded powers especially regard the steering of Synod Assemblies, from their early organisation, through the sessions, to the drafting and approval of final documents — all of which come to be part of the Synod Assembly proper.
Though the Synod of Bishops remains a consultative body, the new law envisions a sort of elision of the body’s teaching authority with that of the Roman Pontiff. Article 18 § 2 reads, “If expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff, the final document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor to Peter.”
Lawyers will quibble over just what sort of elision that is, as they will also discuss the nature of and extent the participation any document thus approved has in Papal teaching authority.
Once again, we are witnessing an attempt to broaden the scope of papal authority in a dangerous way. Recall the book written by National Catholic Register Rome Correspondent Edward Pentin,
The Rigging of a Vatican Synod, about the manipulation that went on behind the scenes at the 2014 Synod on the Family.
That manipulation — aimed at a change in Catholic teaching on sacraments for the divorced and remarried and a reformulation of the Church’s take on homosexual behavior — transpired under the direction of the General Secretary, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri.
And things got worse in the 2015 synod. The lack of transparency and manipulation escalated significantly between the first and second session. Baldisseri later disclosed that
the most controversial parts of the first synod — those on “homosexuality, extra-marital cohabitation, and Communion for the divorced and remarried that failed to gain the approval of the Synod Fathers” in October, 2014, were kept on the table for the 2015 synod by Pope Francis himself:
“It was the Pope’s decision to include the points that did not receive the two-thirds majority,” Cardinal Baldisseri responded. “The Pope said: ‘These three points received an absolute majority. They were therefore not rejected with a ‘no,’ as they received more than 50 percent approval. They are therefore issues that still need to be developed. We as a Church want a consensus. These texts can be modified, that’s clear. Once there has been further reflection, they can be modified.”
Baldisseri also indicated that the pope had been involved with, and had approved, every document — including the deeply divisive mid-term relatio — along each step of the synod process:
“The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence. Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the Relatio synodi [final report] were seen by him before they were published.”
He added, wryly:
“This point is important not only because of his authority, but also it puts the Secretary General at ease.”
And in terms of just how much authority is purportedly going to be given to these kinds of documents, see Article 18 of EC:
Article 18 – The Consignment of the Final Document to the Roman Pontiff
§ 1. When it has been approved by the Members, the Final Document of the Assembly is presented to the Roman Pontiff, who decides on its publication.
If it is expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff, the final Document participates in the Ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter.
§ 2. If the Roman Pontiff has granted deliberative power to the Synodal Assembly, according to the norm of canon 343 of the Code of Canon Law, the final Document particpates in the Ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter once it is ratified and promulgated by him.
In this case, the final Document shall be published with the signature of the Roman Pontiff together with the signatures of the Members of the Synod.
Does everyone remember when Cardinal Burke argued that Amoris Laetitia was not really an “act of the magisterium”? And that it was merely “written as a reflection of the Holy Father on the work of the last two sessions of the Synod of Bishops”?
This new rule — effective immediately — appears to be an attempt to head such critiques off at the pass. The pope writes:
“I hereby establish that what is decreed in this Apostolic Constitution has full efficacy beginning from the day of its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, also if meriting special mention, and that is shall be published in the official register Acta Apostolicae Sedis... I exhort all to welcome with a sincere soul and a ready disposition the norms of this Apostolic Constitution, with the help of the Virgin Mary, Queen of Apostles and Mother of the Church.”[/dim
(It is a dangerous thing for the pope to encourage the faithful to invoke the assistance of the Virgin Mary for help dealing with acts of his pontificate, which is why I wholeheartedly encourage it.)
So what is the upshot of all of this?
We have two upcoming synods – one for addressing the issues facing youth, and one for the Amazon region. Between these two, several controversial issues are expected to be tackled, namely, homosexuality, clerical celibacy, and the inclusion of women in some level of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Marco Tosatti makes a noteworthy observation today in his column at La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana:
it appears clear, after the two Synods on the Family of 2014 and 2015, and after the announcement of the 2019 Synod focused on the Amazon, that this sort of meeting has changed subtly but radically in its form and purpose.
Prior to Francis, the Synods had a purpose of bringing forth numerous voices speaking about problems that had not been noted before – even if they were at times a bit scattered.
But beginning with the Synod on the Family in 2014, organized, prepared, and conducted under the leadership of Cardinal Baldisseri, we have seen that in reality these mega-events are coordinated to follow a precise agenda, intended and directed from on high.
And, in the final analysis, they serve merely to create a backdrop for documents – Amoris Laetitia is the prime example – which are in large part pre-cooked, to which the contributions of the Synod Fathers make purely cosmetic additions.
How can we not recall the candid confession of Archbishop Forte about the confidential conversation he had with the Pope? “If we speak explicitly about giving communion to the divorced and remarried,” reported Msgr. Forte, referring to a remark made by Pope Francis, “they don’t understand what a mess that will put us in. So we will not speak about it in a direct way – do it in a way that the premises are there, and then I will draw out the conclusions.” After reporting this remark, Forte made a joke, saying, “Typical of a Jesuit.” ...
We must ask what agenda is being brought to the Synod on Youth. After Dublin, and given the presence of Eminences and Excellencies who may easily be ascribed to the pro-homosexual philosophical current in the Church, it is no stretch of the imagination to place among the possible objectives for the Synod another little or big step towards the “normalization” of homosexuality and homosexual relations – stable and loving, of course. The wind from Santa Marta seems to be blowing in that direction. In the facts, not in the statements. We hope we are mistaken.
The presence of those “eminences and excellencies” he refers to is certainly of concern. Tosatti lists them:
One cannot help but be perplexed by certain nominations the Pope has made of the bishops who will attend the Synod. Like the nomination of Cardinal Cupich of Chicago, for example, a man who is in the chain of bishops linked to McCarrick and who has declared that the Pope has more important things to focus on than the denunciation of Archbishop Viganò, such as the environment and immigration. Or Cardinal Joe Tobin, Archbishop of Newark, student and heir of McCarrick in that diocese, who candidly admitted that he had not given any weight to the voices denouncing McCarrick because they seemed unbelievable to him. And then there is Cardinal Marx, and Archbishop Paglia…
It’s almost as if the abuse scandal doesn’t exist, or doesn’t matter at all.
If they think that, they have grossly underestimated the concern — and the anger — of a great many Catholics.
- They appear to have calculated, however, that none of that matters.
- They have ignored the accusations of Vigano (despite saying a response would be forthcoming).
- They have continued to act with impunity despite increasing media and governmental scrutiny, and
- They have demonstrated that there is no slowing the freight train of the Francis pontificate, no matter how many flaming dumpsters they have to plow through on the tracks. The agenda of “reform” must move forward at breakneck speed.
It’s almost as though they don’t care how much damage this is doing to the Catholic Church. Or for that matter, as though they welcome it.
Pope Francis boosts authority
of the Synod of Bishops
In new apostolic constitution, the Holy Father gives the body new powers
including applying magisterial authority to a synod’s final document.
Sept. 18, 2018
Pope Francis has increased the authority of the Synod of Bishops, making it similar though not identical to a legislative parliamentary body that aims
to strengthen the involvement of the “people of God” and “further promote dialogue and collaboration” between bishops, and between bishops and the Pope.
In a new apostolic constitution entitled Episcopalis communio (Episcopal Communion), signed on Sept. 15 and made public on Tuesday, the Pope explained
how he wished to make the Synod of Bishops a “permanent central body, outside the dicasteries of the Roman Curia” and able to manifest bishops’ concerns for the “needs of the People of God and communion among all the Churches.”
Most significantly,
he has taken up Paul VI’s prior suggestion to turn the Synod of Bishops into a deliberative, more legislative body rather than a merely consultative one by stating that the final document will now form part of the “ordinary magisterium of the Successor of Peter,” subject to papal approval.
Originally set up as a permanent institution by Pope Paul VI in 1965 with the motu proprio Apostolica sollicitudo to continue the spirit of collegiality and communion present at the Second Vatican Council,
every Synod of Bishops is meant to provide counsel to the Holy Father in a manner that preserves the Church’s teaching and strengthens its internal discipline.
But in recent years, synods [actually, only the two 'family synods' so far under Bergoglio] have been criticized for serving to introduce, sometimes using coercive methods, worldly ways of thinking at odds with the Church’s perennial teaching, especially in the area of morality.
Francis, however, believes synods must continue to be receptive (some would argue subjected) to a changing world ,and with this apostolic constitution he has seemingly enhanced processes already being used.
He reminds the faithful in Episcopalis communio that Paul VI foresaw the body as subject to change (“Like every institution,” Paul wrote, “it can be more perfected with the passing of time”). He highlights the changes in canon law in 1983 and Benedict XVI’s 2006 Ordo Synodi Episcoporum, which among other changes created a general secretariat of the Synod of Bishops. He also cites Pope St. John Paul II who suggested the “instrument” of the Synod of Bishops could be “further improved.”
Francis says he believes a work of renewal must include more “dialogue and collaboration” between episcopates and the Bishop of Rome. The bishop, he explains, is both “teacher and disciple,” made possible when, helped by the Holy Spirit, he “listens to the voice of Christ speaking through the entire People of God, making them ‘infallible in belief.’”
The Synod of Bishops, he goes on to say, must become a “privileged instrument for listening to the People of God,” an “eloquent expression of synodality as a ‘constitutive dimension of the Church’” and a tool for evangelization.
He stresses that it must still retain its consultative basis, but must also be “united in the search for a consensus that flows not from human logic but from common obedience to the Spirit of Christ” — “attentive to the sensus fidei of the People of God” while at the same time distinguishing “carefully from the often-changing flows of public opinion.”
The Pope underlines the importance of the synod fathers being “morally unanimous” if the Synod of Bishops is to be more than consultative. But the document is unclear how synod fathers will vote (until now they have voted on a series of propositions), nor if each proposition will continue to require a two-thirds majority.
Episcopalis communion only talks about achieving a “consensus”, and Bishop Fabio Fabene, under-secretary of the Synod of Bishops, said Tuesday the consensus would simply be “as large as possible between the Synod Fathers.”
Other innovations in the document include
formally giving the synod secretariat powers to prepare and implement the synodal assemblies including being able to “avail itself of an adequate number of officials and consultors” (this was a point of contention in previous synods under Francis as those chosen appeared to adhere to heterodox views and so the process was thought to be a “stacking of the deck”).
Further changes include
- formally enshrining new methods of consulting the People of God (i.e. use of questionnaires and pre-synod meetings with lay faithful and people of other religions);
- the establishment of a “commission for implementation” made up of experts overseen by the synod of bishops’ secretary general; and “councils of the general secretariat” comprising members appointed by the Pope who are to prepare synodal meetings and remain in office until five years after the end of a synod.
The Pope closes the document by stressing the “full, supreme and universal power” of the Bishop of Rome, which he “can always exercise freely” but “always united in communion with the other bishops and with the whole Church.”
He concludes by encouraging a “conversion of the papacy” that will make it “more faithful to the meaning that Jesus Christ intended to give it and to the current needs of evangelization.” He also hopes it will contribute to the “re-establishment of unity among all Christians” and help the Church to find a way of exercising papal primacy without “renouncing what is essential to its mission.”
YECCCHHHHH![Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/09/2018 02:37]