| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 31.141
Post: 13.231 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
And who's the epitome of the doctrinal ideologue but the founder-ideologue himself of Bergoglianism, a mongrel and mongoloid ideology masquerading as a religion?
First, the reading in question:
Reading 1
ACTS 15:22-31
The Apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole Church,
decided to choose representatives
and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas,
and Silas, leaders among the brothers.
This is the letter delivered by them:
"The Apostles and the presbyters, your brothers,
to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia
of Gentile origin: greetings.
Since we have heard that some of our number
who went out without any mandate from us
have upset you with their teachings
and disturbed your peace of mind,
we have with one accord decided to choose representatives
and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So we are sending Judas and Silas
who will also convey this same message by word of mouth:
'It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us
not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,
namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols,
from blood, from meats of strangled animals,
and from unlawful marriage.
If you keep free of these,
you will be doing what is right. Farewell.'"
Pope Francis and 'doctrinal ideologues'
There is a reason the Creed is recited every Sunday - to defend and hold to doctrine
is not only not ideological, it is part and parcel of being a Catholic.
By Carl E. Olson
Editorial
May 22, 2017
This past Friday, May 19, Pope Francis gave a homily, the central point being (as summarized by Vatican Radio) that "True doctrine unites; ideology divides."
So far, so good. But the homily, which was based on the Holy Father's reflections on the day's readings and on the Council of Jerusalem, which convened in 49 A.D. to address the serious tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians, contains some curious — and pointed — remarks quite evidently aimed at the current situation. [Not surprising at all because this has become habitual with the pope – to literally make the most of his papal pulpit to play the bully.]
From the Vatican Radio summary:
The reading describes two different kinds of people: those who had “forceful discussions” but with “a good spirit,” on the one hand; and those who “sowed confusion”: “The group of the apostles who want to discuss the problem, and the others who go and create problems. They [the latter] divide, they divide the Church, they say that what the Apostles preached is not what Jesus said, that it is not the truth.
The apostles discussed the situation among themselves, and in the end came to an agreement: But it is not a political agreement; it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that leads them to say: no things, no necessities. [Is he saying that the Holy Spirit, God, asks nothing of us, his creatures - other that is, than beg his mercy which he would never deny no matter how much we offend him, again and again, with no intention of amending our life?] Only [there are] those who say: don’t eat meat at the time, meat sacrificed to idols, because that was communion with the idols; abstain from blood, from animals that were strangled, and from illegitimate unions.". [But reading the passage from Acts in the citation I posted above, the Apostles were saying that these were among the necessary prohibitions that the faithful would be burdened with, because "if you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right!!!]
The Pope pointed to the “liberty of the Spirit” that leads to agreement: so, he said, the Gentiles were allowed to enter the Church without having to undergo circumcision. It was at the heart of the “first Council” of the Church: the Holy Spirit and they, the Pope with the Bishops, all together,” gathered together in order “to clarify the doctrine"; and later, through the centuries – as at Ephesus or at Vatican II – because “it is a duty of the Church to clarify the doctrine,” so that “what Jesus said in the Gospels, what is the Spirit of the Gospels, would be understood well” [Did he not realize while he was saying all this that he has been acting precisely in nonchalant contradiction of this duty - not just of the Church in general, but specifically of the pope??? But then, he has all along been blinded by his absolutely progressivist ideology, and genuine ideolog that he is, does not even realize it! The following paragraphs show how completely blind he is to his supremely and primarily ideological position, because what he says applies much more to him and his true believers than to the Catholics he presumes to be attacking.
But there were always people who without any commission go out to disturb the Christian community with speeches that upset souls: ‘Eh, no, someone who says that is a heretic, you can’t say this, or that; this is the doctrine of the Church.’ And they are fanatics of things that are not clear, like those fanatics who go there sowing weeds in order to divide the Christian community.
And this is the problem: when the doctrine of the Church, that which comes from the Gospel, that which the Holy Spirit inspires – because Jesus said, “He will teach us and remind you of all that I have taught’ – [when] that doctrine becomes an ideology. And this is the great error of those people.”
These individuals, the Pope explained, “were not believers, they were ideologized,” they had an ideology that closed the heart to the work of the Holy Spirit.
The Apostles, on the other hand, certainly discussed things forcefully, but they were not ideologized: “They had hearts open to what the Holy Spirit said. And after the discussion ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.’”[
Pope Francis’s final exhortation was to not be afraid in the face “of the opinions of the ideologues of doctrine.” The Church, he concluded, has “its proper Magisterium, the Magisterium of the Pope, of the Bishops, of the Councils,” and we must go along the path “that comes from the preaching of Jesus, and from the teaching and assistance of the Holy Spirit,” which is “always open, always free,” because “doctrine unites, the Councils unite the Christian community, while, on the other hand, “ideology divides.” [It's hard to imagine more determinedly self-deluding words than these.]
A few things come to mind. First, this reflects the theme, stated often by Francis and those close to him, that the recent Synods and Amoris Laetitia reveal a fresh and "surprising" move by the Holy Spirit that — to quote Cardinal Walter Kasperr— "doesn’t change anything of church doctrine or of canon law - but it changes everything". That sort of statement, of course, is along the lines of saying that"2+2" can equal 5 in theology.
Cardinal Schönborn, in an October 2015 speech, directly compared the recent Synods to the Council of Jerusalem, saying that first-century gathering was the “model for the method of Synod.” And, as reported by Catholic Culture:
This “first synod” was marked by “dramatic conflict”: similarly, bishops need to speak clearly and boldly and listen to one another attentively at synods, Cardinal Schönborn said. “Animated discussions” should not be feared.
While theological debate is important, the conflict at the Council of Jerusalem was solved when Peter made a decision. The others accepted Peter’s decision in silent humility, and then some of the apostles spoke of the works of God that they had witnessed. The Church then received the decision of the council with joy.
The implication, it appears, is that 1) the Synods have the same clout as Councils, 2) the recent Synods solved some sort of conflict, and 3) once the pope makes a decision, there should be humble silence only. Period. (Even if it means mischaracterizing how the actual voting went down.)
Another example of the "surprising Spirit" can be found in Francis's homily of April 28, 2016, summarized by ZENIT, in part:
This is the way of the Church when faced with novelties, the Pope said. Not the worldly novelties of fashion, but the novelties of the Spirit who always surprises us. How does the Church resolve these problems? Through meetings and discussions, listening and praying, before making a final decision. This is the way of the Church when the Spirit surprises us, Pope Francis said, recalling the resistance that emerged in recent times during the Second Vatican Council.
That resistance continues today in one way or another, he said, yet the Spirit moves ahead. And the way the Church expresses its communion is through synodality, by meeting, listening, debating, praying and deciding. The Spirit is always the protagonist and the Lord asks us not to be afraid when the Spirit calls us.
Secondly, returning to Francis's recent homily, one has to ask: Who are these fanatics "who go there sowing weeds in order to divide the Christian community"? Francis appears to be insinuating that those who question certain things he says are very likely heretics and fanatics who use doctrine to divide the Church. This is, unfortunately, his way of argumentation, which is really just rhetorical jabbing. By all appearances, he has no interest in clarifying what he has clouded.
Thirdly, how does doctrine become an ideology? The problem, in part, is that Francis's use of the term "ideology" is something like a shotgun blast: It sounds powerful and gets attention, but the exact target can be hard to locate. But it is clear, in keeping with the first point, that Francis sees "ideology" as being closed to the Holy Spirit.
However, can true doctrine be "ideological"? It's an interesting question. On one hand, it's true that claiming a doctrinal statement captures is the entirety of the mystery of Faith is incorrect, even dangerous; it is true that saying a particular school of theology perfectly and completely expresses the Faith has an ideological character; it is unsound and unwise.
But adherence to true doctrine, it seems to me, cannot be ideological simply by holding fast to true doctrine. (There is, after all, a reason the Creed is recited every Sunday, to give just one example.) On the contrary, to defend and hold to doctrine is not only not ideological, it is part and parcel of being a Christian.
So, for instance, if someone claimed that holding to the Church's teaching that God is One (in nature) and Triune (in Persons) needs to be "open" to other views, would it be ideological to hold fast to the Church's basic doctrine? Of course not. [Yet this is Bergoglio’s almost-reflexive way of dismissing those who believe in the unchanging deposit of the faith, and in dismissing them, he is therefore dismissing that deposit of faith itself!]
Fourth, there are some very basic problems with the comparison made between the Council of Jerusalem and the recent Synods and the Apostolic Exhortation. Here are just a few:
1) The Council of Jerusalem did not debate or change any teaching about the moral law. It was focused on the ceremonial law and rituals, especially regarding circumcision.
2) The key points of contention at the recent Synods involved core moral issues relating to sexuality (fornication, adultery, homosexuality), as well as the essential nature of the sacraments (especially matrimony and Holy Communion).
3) The matters of circumcision and eating foods sacrificed to idols had not been addressed by Christ during his time on earth.
4) The matters of marriage, divorce, and remarriage had been addressed by Christ during his time on earth (Matt 5:31-32).
And, as I pointed out a month ago, in making several points about the nature of the Magisterium and its relationship to the deposit of faith: "Insinuating that the Church can change teachings simply because Pope A or Pope B decides he wishes to is problematic, to say the least; this is especially the case when the matter at hand has to do with the very nature of the sacraments, the proper role of conscience, and the life of grace”
In sum, put bluntly, I see such homilies and addresses as exercises in posturing and polemics — and not very sound polemics at that. Put together (and I've only noted a few here), they add up to a collection of blustering statements meant to shut down any and all questions about Amoris Laetitia and related matters.
What would be funny if all of this wasn't so serious is just how heavy-handed, clumsy, and even bush league so much of this stuff has been (see, for instance, recent ridiculous remarks by Cardinal Maradiaga, one of Francis's closest advisors).
Which brings me to a post by Matthew Schmitz, one of the editors of First Things, titled "Burying Benedict". Schmitz writes:
Though Benedict is still living, Francis is trying to bury him. Upon his election in 2013, Francis began to pursue an agenda that Joseph Ratzinger had opposed throughout his career. A stress on the pastoral over against the doctrinal, a promotion of diverse disciplinary and doctrinal approaches in local churches, the opening of communion to the divorced and remarried—all these proposals were weighed and rejected by Ratzinger more than ten years ago in a heated debate with Walter Kasper. For better or worse, Francis now seeks to reverse Ratzinger.
One of Schmitz's key arguments, which I think is right on the mark, is that what we are seeing, in this pontificate, is a re-engagement of Cardinal Kasper's longstanding conflict with Ratzinger/Benedict XVI over the nature of the Church and pastoral practice. That is also a point made by Tracey Rowland in her exceptional new book Catholic Theology (T&T Clark, 2017), and which she touches 0n (albeit in more general terms) in my recent interview with her:
What are the essential differences between the [post-Vatican II] Communio and Concilium movements? And how has the debate, or clash, between the two shaped the current theological landscape?
First of all, they have a totally different understanding of Christ’s exhortation to his apostles to read the signs of the times. Embedded within this is a different understanding of revelation. As a caricature one could say that the Communio theologians look at contemporary cultural movements from the perspective of the magisterial teaching of the Church, while the Concilium types look at the magisterial teaching of the Church from the perspective of contemporary cultural movements.
The Communio types believe that when Christ told his disciples to read the signs of the times he was telling them that he, Christ, was the sign of the time. He was making an eschatological point. He was saying to his disciples understand that you are now living in the Christian era, understand that the Incarnation has happened, understand that God has assumed human nature. He was not saying it is important that you keep abreast of changing social currents and correlate the Christian faith to them.
Secondly, while the Communio and Concilium style theologians agree that Catholic theology represents a synthesis of faith and reason, they prefer different philosophical partners for theology. Karl Rahner predicted that given there are so many different philosophies currently in play, Catholic scholars would be tempted by what he called a ‘gnoseological concupiescence’ – the desire to hook up Catholic theology to all manner of fashionable philosophies. A very significant difference between the Communio and Concilium scholars is thus found in their choice of philosophical partners. For example, the Communio types are not remotely attracted to cultural Marxism.
Thirdly, as you indicated above, the two groups have a different attitude towards the cultures of modernity and post-modernity. While not eschewing every single aspect of these cultures, the Communio theologians (like the Radical Orthodoxy theologians with whom they overlap on a number of fronts) are much more critical of these cultures than the Concilium style theologians.
Fourthly, the two groups have different attitudes toward magisterial authority and other issues in ecclesiology such as the nature of the Petrine office and the priestly ministry.
Schmitz, in concluding his essay, states:
Though he is usually portrayed as spontaneous and non-ideological, Francis has steadily advanced the agenda that Kasper outlined over a decade ago.
In the face of this challenge, Benedict has kept an almost perfect silence. There is hardly any need to add to the words in which he resoundingly rejected the program of Kasper and Francis. And yet the awkwardness remains. No pope in living memory has so directly opposed his predecessor — who, in this instance, happens to live just up the hill. This is why supporters of Francis’s agenda become nervous whenever Benedict speaks, as he recently did in praise of Cardinal Sarah. Were the two men in genuine accord, partisans of Francis would not fear the learned, gentle German who walks the Vatican Gardens.
And so the two popes, active and emeritus, speaking and silent, remain at odds. In the end, it does not matter who comes last or speaks most; what matters is who thinks with the mind of a Church that has seen countless heresies come and go. When Benedict’s enraptured words are compared to the platitudes of his successor, it is hard not to notice a difference: One pope echoes the apostles, and the other parrots Walter Kasper. Because this difference in speech reflects a difference in belief, a prediction can be made. Regardless of who dies first, Benedict will outlive Francis.[/dim/
Ironically, while Francis talks about clarifying doctrine, there's simply no doubt that Amoris Laetitia, despite all protests and posturings, has instead confused, disturbed, and confounded with its ambiguities and problematic assertions. Insistence that this is all about "pastoral" issues is misleading, at best, since doctrine and practice go hand in hand; you need not be a theologian to see the essential relationship between what you believe and how you live (it might even be that not being a theologian is helpful in this regard). This pontificate has been divisive in ways few could have imagined prior to 2013.
In addition, while Francis likes to talk about the "people", it's fairly evident that he has little patience for those people who dare question his questionable statements and actions, no matter how carefully, formally, or respectfully they do so. His impatience with theological precision and doctrinal clarity is unsettling. As I noted back in December 2015:
I can only conclude that, for whatever reason, this pope has a deep aversion to theological precision (and, thus, clarity) and is quite impatient with how “doctrine” and “dogma” impede his vision of how things should be in the Church. This is troubling on several counts ... First, following the logic of Francis's various remarks, the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (for starters) were pharisaical and unnecessarily complex, and thus stand opposed to his vision of mercy. Whether or not Francis cares about such a logical progression and conclusion is, of course, an entirely different matter.
And it's not just about burying Benedict; it's also about ignoring St. John Paul II. In the meantime, there is the name-calling, the scolding, and the vague appeals to the Holy Spirit.
Two days before that May 19 typically scrambled papal homilette, I had set aside the ff reflection by Mons. Charles Pope of Washington, DC, on the very passages in the Acts of the Apostles referring to that first Council of Jerusalem.
However, my major caveat, then as now, is that one would think he was arguing for the validity of Amoris laetitia - assuming he considers the synodal assemblies that led Bergoglio to his feat of ecclesiastical derring-do as equivalent to an ecumenical council, like the Council of Jerusalem, and the subsequent ecumenical councils up to Vatican II have been, i.e., 'councils of the bishops with the popes'. But then, Mons. Pope underscores that from Jerusalem onwards, "Peter sought to unite them" in what was right for the Church, whereas Bergoglio, as Successor of Peter, did his best - but in vain - to unite the synodal bishops behind his erroneous and anti-Catholic position.
That was the major difference between the early Council of Jerusalem and the Bergoglian synods: In Jerusalem, Peter originally took a position about the Gentiles that Paul and others opposed, but Peter, after what happened to him in Joppa, saw reason and decided the right way - the only way he could have done, if The Holy Spirit had anything to do with it.
Consider Mons. Pope's reflections compared to that of Bergoglio two days later:
'It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and us'-
A reflection on the Catholicity of the early Church
by Msgr. Charles Pope
COMMUNITY IN MISSION
May 17, 2017
The first readings at daily Mass this week recount the Council of Jerusalem, which scholars generally date to around 50 A.D. It was a pivotal moment in the history of the Church, because it would set forth an identity for Her that was independent of the culture of Judaism per se, and would open wide the door of inculturation to the Gentiles. This surely had a significant effect on evangelization in the early Church.
Catholic ecclesiology is evident in this first council, in that we have a very Catholic model of how a matter of significant pastoral practice and doctrine is properly dealt with. What we see here is the same model that the Catholic Church has continued to use right up to the present day.
In this and all subsequent ecumenical councils, there is a gathering of the bishops, presided over by the Pope, that considers and may even debate a matter. In the event that consensus cannot be reached, the Pope resolves the debate. Once a decision is reached, it is considered binding and a letter is issued to the whole Church.
All of these elements are seen in this first council of the Church in Jerusalem, although in seminal form. Let’s consider this council, beginning with some background.
1. Bring in the Gentiles! Just prior to ascending, the Lord gave the Apostles the great commission: Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). The Gentiles were now to be summoned and included in the ranks of discipleship and of the Church.
2. The Church was mighty slow in beginning any outreach to the Gentiles. While it is true that on the day of Pentecost people from every nation heard Peter’s sermon, and more than 3000 converted, they were all Jews (Acts 2). In fact, there seems little evidence of the Church moving far from Jerusalem let alone to all the nations.
3. Perhaps as a swift kick in the pants, the Lord allowed a persecution to break out in Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). This caused the gospel to begin a northward trek, into Samaria at least. Samaritans, however, are not usually considered Gentiles, because they were a group that had intermarried with Jews in the 8th century B.C. There was also the baptism of an Ethiopian official, but he, too, was a Jew.
4. Fifteen years? The timeline of Acts is a bit speculative. However, if we study it carefully and compare it to some of what Paul says (especially in Galatians), it would seem that it was between 12 and 15 years before the baptism of the first Gentile took place! If this is true, then another nudge or push from the Lord was surely needed. There was strong racial animosity between Jews and Gentiles, which may explain the slow response to Jesus’s commission. Although it may explain it, it does not excuse it. However, the Lord does not fail to guide His Church.
5. Time for another kick in the pants. This time the Lord goes to Peter, who was praying on a rooftop in Joppa, and by means of a vision teaches him that he should not call unclean what God calls clean. The Lord then sends to Peter an entourage from Cornelius, a high Roman military official seeking baptism. Cornelius, of course, is a Gentile.
The entourage requests that Peter accompany them to meet Cornelius at Cesarea. At first, he is reluctant, but then recalling the vision (the kick in the pants) that God gave him, Peter decides to go. In Cesarea, he does something unthinkable: Peter, a Jew, enters the house of a Gentile. He has learned his lesson and as the first Pope has been guided by God to do what is right and just. After a conversation with Cornelius and the whole household as well as signs from the Holy Spirit, Peter baptizes them. Praise the Lord! It was about time. (All of this is detailed in Acts 10.)
6. Many are not happy with what Peter has done and they confront him about it. Peter explains his vision and also the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, insisting that this is how it is going to be. While it is true that these early Christians felt freer to question Peter than we would the Pope today, it is also a fact that what Peter has done is binding even if some of them don’t like it; what Peter has done will stand. Once Peter has answered them definitively, they reluctantly assent and declare somewhat cynically,“God has granted life giving repentance even to the Gentiles!” (Acts 11:18)
7. Trouble is brewing. The mission to the Gentiles is finally open, but that does not mean that the trouble is over. As Paul, Barnabas, and others begin to bring in large numbers of Gentile converts, some among the Jewish Christians begin to object that they are not like Jews and insist that the Gentiles must be circumcised and follow the whole of Jewish Law — not just the moral precepts but also the cultural norms, kosher diet, purification rites, etc. (That is where we picked up the story in yesterday’s Mass.)
8. The Council of Jerusalem – Luke, a master of understatement, says, “Because there arose no little dissension and debate …” (Acts 15:2) it was decided to ask the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to gather and consider the matter. So the Apostles and some presbyters (priests) meet. Of course Peter is there as is James, who was especially prominent in Jerusalem among the Apostles and would later become bishop there.
Once again, Luke rather humorously understates the matter by saying, “After much debate, Peter arose” (Acts 15:7). Peter arises to settle the matter because, it would seem, the Apostles themselves were divided. Had not Peter received this charge from the Lord? The Lord had prophesied, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat but I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:31-32).
Peter now fulfills this text, as he will again in the future and as will every Pope after him. Peter clearly dismisses any notion that the Gentiles should be made to take up the whole burden of Jewish customs. Paul and Barnabas rise to support this. Then James (who it seems may have felt otherwise) rises to assent to the decision and asks that a letter be sent forth to all the Churches explaining the decision. He also asks for and obtains a few concessions.
So there it is, the first council of the Church. That council, like all the Church-wide councils that would follow, was a gathering of the bishops in the presence of Peter, who worked to unite them. At a council a decision is made and a decree binding on the whole Church is sent out — very Catholic, actually.
We have kept this biblical model ever since that first council. Our Protestant brethren have departed from it because they have no pope to settle things when there is disagreement. They have split into tens of thousands of denominations and factions. When no one is pope, everyone is pope.
A final thought: Notice how the decree to the Churches is worded: "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us" (Acts 15:28).
- In the end, we trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in matters of faith and morals.
- We trust that decrees and doctrines that issue forth from councils of the bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself.
There it is right in Scripture, the affirmation that when the Church speaks solemnly in this way, it is not just the bishops and the Pope speaking as men, it is the Holy Spirit speaking with them.
The Church — Catholic from the start!
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/05/2017 22:34] |