Fr Scalese recently wrote a two-part blogpost which covers quite a lot of ground, all of which is designed to underscore the relentless maneuverings in this pontificate to fundamentally change the Church
that Jorge Bergoglio was elected to lead, into a church made in his likeness and image....
A more synodal Church?
By all means, but...
September 19, 2018
Revolutions have always been fundamentally elitist events. The most striking example is the Neapolitan revolution of 1799, which is the subject of the
Saggio storico (Historic essay) by the 18th century Neapolitan writer Vincenzo Cuoco. He says that the 1799 revolution failed because it was
a ‘passive revolution’, one imposed on the people.
But even successful revolutions such as the French Revolution of 1789 or the Russian Revolution of 1917, were not less elitist than that of Naples, even if the textbooks insist on portraying them as phenomena involving the masses. They succeeded not because they were popular uprisings but because, at a certain point, they became dictatorships, and a strongman – e.g., Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin – was able to impose them on their people in a definitive manner.
The true popular phenomena are, instead, those counter-revolutionary insurgencies (starting with that of the highly Catholic Vendee region in southwestern France in 1793)
[the uprising led by the Catholic and Royalist Army was suppressed after several months by the Revolution’s Committee of Public Safety after several months, with a death toll from mass killings amounting to as many as half of the region’s 800,000 population at the time] which were nevertheless
destined to fail for want of the right leader/strongman.
Yet revolutionary elites have always paid lip service to the people – with a capital P – even if this was nothing for them but a slogan, an abstract idea.
They had little interest in people as flesh and blood. They had little interest in reality, only in ideology.
'The people' - real people – are generally non-‘revolutionary’ but attached to tradition. Which was demonstrated by the many popular insurgencies against the French Revolution and attempts to impose Jacobine ideas on the rest of Europe. Even in the following centuries,
every time that the people were given the opportunity to express themselves freely, they usually responded with an attitude of moderation.
Consider what has been happening in recent years in the Western world where, even in the absence of an official revolution, power has become concentrated in the hands of a few elite.
Obviously, they – like elites at all times in history – have presented themselves as advanced, mentally open and sensitive to the needs of mankind. They spout words like democracy, freedom, equality, human rights, etc. In fact, they have been occupied exclusively with perpetrating their own privileges.
In recent years, the people – better said, various peoples (because ‘the people’ do not really exist and are nothing but an abstraction) – have started to open their eyes, and when given the chance to vote, they have chosen to vote with the parties that are populist, despite the brainwashing carried on by the media that are totally controlled by the elite.
The Church is not an exception to the rule. For many years, there has been a revolution under way that claims to be carrying out reforms demanded by the base – the so-called 'People of God’. But
it actually is a true and proper revolution carried on by a narrow elite which little by little has succeeded to occupy all the important positions of power, getting to the very top of the Church hierarchy in recent years.
Even in this case, their talk is all about 'the people of God', 'a church of the people', 'base communities', 'decentralization', 'more space and scope' for local Churches, bishops’ conferences, laymen and women. When in fact,
we are witnessing a centralization never before seen in the history of the Church and the dissemination of a mentality that is increasingly clerical [in the sense of religious authorities exercising considerable power over ‘the People of God’].
There is much talk about ‘listening’, but there is a refusal by these authorities to consider any position other than their own, and no form of dissent is allowed. One has the impression that the elite who currently hold power in the Church are only interested in carrying out a pre-defined agenda that can in no way be modified.
The paradox is that traditionalist Catholics who have always opposed any kind of reform – because they believe that it could call to question the hierarchical structure of the Church and undermine the Roman Pontiff – are now the first to question the initiatives of this pope, and some have gone so far as to ask for his resignation.
Whereas
progressivist Catholics, who have always supported the rights of local churches, bishops’ conference, laymen, women, and Third World peoples, have had no qualms about climbing the ladders of power in order to carry out their agenda. Yet all their initiatives in these categories, to whose emancipation in the Church they have contributed, are turning out to be anything but revolutionary. Just think, for example of their opposition to the ‘new course’ proposed by the African bishops or by the US laity.
So even in the Church, the real people are showing themselves to be much more conservative than expected. And the revolutionaries are, once again, only the elite.
Conservation of the faith has never been endangered by giving more participation to the base of the Church. The danger comes only from the clerical elite.
This long introduction leads me to comment on the new Apostolic Constitution
Episcopalis communio about the Bishops’ Synod, published on September 15 and presented at a news conference the next day.
Apart from the form of the document – as an apostolic constitution, which calls to mind t
he pressures publicly exerted on this pope by some German bishops about a year ago to decree his reforms in such a form, precisely, so as to ‘set them in stone’ – I do not feel I can express a judgment on what it contains.
I have read it, and I did not find anything revolutionary about it. But to make an evaluation, one would need to have direct experience on the matter, which I don’t have. My only concern is about the words that came after the fact.
- To take one example, if one writes about “listening to the People of God” (No. 6), it is to be hoped that such listening happens. But one fears that this listening will be reduced to the usual platitudes exchanged among ‘the People of God’.
- If one writes about ‘consulting the faithful’, by all means! But one fears that this means consulting the usual participating organisms constituted by elites at the parish, diocesan, national and Roman levels.
There is also the more serious concern expressed in
La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, well summarized in the title to the article by Stefano Fontana:
“The agenda has been written; the Synod is only a pretext”. Strong words but certainly not without basis. We all remember vividly how the last two Bergoglian synods went. One fears therefore that
this synodal assembly is merely a malleable instrument for introducing Church reforms of an subversive nature. I hope these concerns will be shown to be excessive.
But I am impelled to reiterate here that, granting that this and other reforms are inherently ‘good’ and conceding the good faith of those promoting such reforms, one should not fear a more synodal and more popular church. As I have sought to show earlier, one need not fear the people, much less the People of God.
Rightly,
Episcopalis communio brings up the
sensus fidelium, which a bit freely but correctly translates as “the instinct of the people of God”.
The People of God cannot err by believing their faith. It is easier for an individual to err – even if he is a bishop or the pope – than it is for the entire community of the faithful.
I continue to be amazed, during this time of a profound crisis in the Church, by the requests for ‘cleansing’ of the Church that comes from the faithful here in Italy. In the face of a clergy which has shown itself to be wanting in many essential aspects, there is a laity that has not been content to remain scandalized but demand that the Church be cleansed.
These laity did not just fall from heaven. They have grown up among us for years – we too have contributed to form them. And certainly, these are those on whom the magisterium and example fof John Paul II and Benedict XVI have left a mark. These are the faithful who listened to what we – priests, bishops, popes – have told them. They have taken us seriously. It is some of us who have failed to take seriously what we have told them… So why should we fear giving more space to the laity?
Likewise, I don’t think we should fear giving more space to bishops. The Church has always been synodal and has preserved the deposit of faith precisely through ecumenical councils and bishops’ synods, among other modalities. In this regard, I would advise reading the most interesting presentation made by Prof Dario Vitali at the presentaiton of the new Apostolic Consitution.
Seeing what has been happening in the Church in our days, one would say that the Orthodox Churches, with their fundamentally synodal structure, have preserved their faith better than we have done in the Latin Church with our primatial struture.
Ecumenical councils and bishops’ synods can only work for the good of the Church if they take place in the spirit of obedience to the Holy Spirit and fidelity to Tradition.
The only thing we should fear are the lobbies which have tried to take possession of these organisms to make them instruments for subverting the Church. But I have the impression that such plots - which were rather easy to machinate in the recent past (think of all the active lobbying that took place during Vatican II) – have started to become more difficult to carry out with the means [and faciity and rapidity] of communication that we have today.
But it is necessary that the faithful be closely vigilant to discourage any attempts at manipulating future synods and councils to that they may function properly.
[How exactly - since only a privileged few laymen selected by the pope can participate in such assemblies, and I don't think their participation comes with a right to vote.]
The primacy of Tradition
October, 2018
Let me continue with what I started out to discuss in my Sept. 19 post, as I did not think I said everything I needed to say. Not that anything I wrote then was wrong, but that it was inadequate. In effect, I was limited to urging my readers not to be afraid of synodality and to be vigilant against the danger of lobbies. Which is true.
But the danger does not come only from lobbies.
- It can also come from bishops who take part with good faith in a synodal assembly but with
the wrong attitude, thinking they would be able to decide anything.
- It is a danger that even the pope risks – namely,
exercising his primacy with the maximum of good faith but in the spirit of someone who thinks he has absolute power.
What do I want to say? We could be discussing pontifical primacy and synodality to decide which comes first. But we would be forgetting that the problem does not merely lie in those two realities. T
he problem is how a council, a synod or the pope’s very ministry itself, are understood.
We may be forgetting that
primacy and synodality are not absolute but relative values – they are merely the functional instruments for a superior good that they must pursue. Which is: the preservation, deeper understanding and transmission of the deposit of faith.
Paul’s command to Timothy was clear:
Depositum custodi (1Tm 6:20; 2Tm 1:14). Unfortunately, in the current Italian translation of the Bible, the word ‘deposit’ has disappeared – as though it were incomprehensible – and was replaced by a paraphrase which nonetheless does convey the sense, namely
“Safeguard that which has been entrusted to you”, in the first citation, and
“Safeguard the precious good that was entrusted to you”, in the second.
In the first Letter to the Corinthians, Paul underscores the importance of transmitting that which has been received.
«Ego enim accepi a Domino, quod et tradidi vobis” (For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you) (1Cor 11:23); and
«Tradidi enim vobis in primis, quod et accepi” (For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received) (1Cor 15:3).
If this sense of tradition is lacking, then both the bishops’ meeting as well as the exercise of papal primacy would be transformed into a manifestation of despotic, arbitrary and discretionary power.
Recently, Fr Thomas Rosica, who has been the Vatican Press Office’s English language briefing officer since the first ‘family synod’, wrote that
the pope can do whatever he wishes to do:
Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is “free from disordered attachments.” Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture. (The Ignatian Qualities of the Petrine Ministry of Pope Francis, July 31, 2018)
Upset by these disquieting statements, I decided to re-read the Dogmatic Constitution
Pastor aeternus from Vatican I. As usual, if we are limited to reading the dogmatic definitions of some documents, we thereby lose the theological richness they contain which form the basis for the definitions.
If we read Chapter 4 of the Constitution, “On the infallble Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff”, we find a series of citations which make us understand how we must consider papal magisterium, apart from the limits placed on papal infallibility by its dogmatic definition.
First of all, it takes on the ‘Ormisda formula’ from the Fourth Council of Constantinople:
Prima salus est, rectae fidei regulam custodire. –
Salvation consists first of all in safeguarding the norms of correct faith (Denzinger-Schönmetzer = DS 3066).
Then the Second Council of Lyon is cited:
[Sancta Romana Ecclesia] prae ceteris tenetur fidei veritatem defendere. –
Before anything else, the task of defending the truth of the faith is the responsibility of the Roman Church. (DS 3067).
There follows quick historical review summarized thus:
[Romani Pontifices] ea tenenda definierunt, quae sacris Scripturis et apostolicis traditionibus consentanea Deo adiutore cognoverant. –
The Roman Pontiffs have defined that whatever they have acknowledged to conform to Sacred Scriptures and to apostolic traditions must be maintained. (DS 3069).
But that which follows is the most interesting
[the one often cited by Fr Hunwicke in this regard, one he urge his readers to ‘learn by heart’]:
Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus Sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per Apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent.
“The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter’s successors so that they should, by His revelation, disclose new teaching, but so that, with His assistance, they should devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the apostles, the Deposit of Faith.” (DS 3070).
Finally, one must not forget the Declaration of the German Bishops in Jan-Feb 2875, which, as far as I know, is the only authoritative interpretation of the dogma of papal infallibility which was ratified by Pope Pius IX himself:
[Infallibilitas papalis] restringitur ad proprietatem summi magisterii papalis: id vero coincidit cum ambitu magisterii infallibilis ipsius Ecclesiae et est ligatum ad doctrinam in Sacra Scriptura et in traditione contentam necnon ad definitiones a magisterio ecclesiastico iam latas.
Papal infallibility is restricted to the proper exercise of the supreme teaching authority which coincides with the infallible teaching authority of the Church itself, which must be within the scope of the teaching contained in Holy Scripture and in tradition, as well as to the definitions already promulgated by the Church Magisterium. (DS 3116)
Therefore, the pope cannot do whatever he wants to do. He, too, is subject to the authority of Revelation which is contained in Scriptures and in Tradition. He cannot elaborate new doctrines.
Let us repeat, in case it is not sufficiently clear:
“The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter’s successors so that they should, by His revelation, disclose new teaching, but so that, with His assistance, they should devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the apostles, the Deposit of Faith.”
The pope’s duty is to scrupulously safeguard and transmit the deposit of the faith with full fidelity to the faithful. The bishops too, meeting in an ecumenical council or in a synodal assembly, havethe same duty. They cannot think that the Spirit will reveal something new!
Because before synodality, however opportune, and even before papal primacy itself, there exists the primacy of Tradition, to which everyone – popes, bishops and faithful – are obliged to submit.
Only if fidelity to Tradition once again becomes the supreme and undisputed norm can primacy and synodality have any meaning and therefore able to help and enrich us in their turn. Otherwise, neither primary nor synodality are useless and must be cast aside like “salt which has lost its taste… is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” (Mt 5:13).
P.S.
A propos from Fr Hunwicke:
The Holy Spirit is not
'the private personal bailiwick of PF'
Oct 4, 2018
So there I was, the other day, strolling down St Giles without a care in the world... Then I stopped as I recognised a brother priest. After Rome, Oxford must be one of the most priested cities in the World.
Urbs felicissima. We exchanged fellowship.
"When you get home", he advised me, "have gin. A very, very stiff gin. Then another. Then read the Communique of the CBCEW [Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales] just issued at the end of their ad limina visit to the Holy See. Then have some more gin".
I always do my best to take the advice of brother clergy. I have profound confidence in their sacerdotal wisdom. I soon saw what he meant about the gin.
The Communique includes a passage which seemed to me familiar:
"[PF] is indeed gifted with a unique grace of the the Holy Spirit of God. Even in this time of turmoil, the Holy Father is so clearly rooted in God and blessed by God. His peace is secure. His life is serene. We know, because he showed us his heart. It is the heart of a loving father. In our turn, we affirmed our deep communion with him and promised him our love, support, and prayers. We expressed confidently these sentiments on behalf of all the faithful Catholics of England and Wales."
It seemed familiar because it is manifestly from the same drafting hand which composed a letter to PF on the fourth anniversary of his election to the Throne of S Peter.
"On behalf of the Catholic Community of England and Wales ... we thank God that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in the process of your election and that the same Holy Spirit guides and supports you day by day".
I would have to concede that such statements are probably not formally heretical. After all, each of the Baptised is gifted with a grace of the Holy Spirit which must be unique - crafted specifically for each differently created and variously loved individual. Praise be to God for this.
But if these encomia are meant to have any meaning beyond that of sycophantic woffle, then give me instead ... any day of the year ... the robust common sense and deft Bavarian humour with which Pope Benedict XVI responded when some fool of a journalist asked him whether the Holy Spirit guided Papal Conclaves.
Call me an unfaithful Catholic if you like, but
I have no desire to be associated with these papolatrous statements implying that the Holy Spirit is the private personal bailiwick of PF. They seem to me to come close to blasphemy.
Nor am I very clear what is meant by "deep communion". I think I understand "communion" as a theological and canonical concept.
I think I know the difference between being in full, and being in unfull, communion with the Church.
But what on earth are these gradations of deepness in the matter of Communion? "Are you in Communion with the See of Rome!" "Up to a point, Lord Copper".
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 05/10/2018 16:55]