New Cardinal Pierre, Vatican's US ambassador, says Pope Francis 'filled with spirit of Vatican II'
[The synod] is not to change the doctrine of the church. A lot of people are afraid about synodality; they say, "The pope will change everything." No, that's not true. The pope wants us to work together at all levels: in the family, in the parish, in the diocese, as a national church, as a universal church. And for that, we need to make an effort to listen to one another, and also to listen to the Holy Spirit.
I am a bit amazed to see people saying, "We don't want synodality, because this goes nowhere." It goes somewhere. But it requires effort. If you are a parish priest, you have to involve all your parishioners. Fathers and mothers have to involve the family and work together.And the togetherness needs to be organized, so as to enter into the structure of the church. This is what synodality is all about. The synod ... is a moment to examine if and how the church at the local level is actually working together and trying to offer to a divided world something new.
In that sense, do you think that the synod is the living out of the Second Vatican Council, and its vision of the church in the world?
Certainly; I fully agree with you. I think the Second Vatican Council was a huge event of the Spirit. And it's amazing to see how Pope Francis is really filled with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. He wants to help the church with the reception of the council, which is very important. This is part of the life of the church: We have to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
My comments:
The quote above is heartening if true. But that’s the problem, the more they protest that Pope Francis won’t change doctrine, he will do so through the so-called ideology of “development of doctrine.” An example of this is what Cardinal Designate Fernàndez said about sodomy. He likened it to St. Paul’s mandate that women cover their heads when going to church. What nonsense to equate the two. Sexual morality is based not just on Scripture, but Tradition and can be discovered through natural law. There is no such development with women covering their heads!
But what Cardinal Designate Pierre doesn’t mention is what Pope Benedict was trying to do which is the same thing, walking together in a unified way with the premise that Vatican II was renewal in continuity with what preceded Vatican II.
The current polarization in the Church has many levels. First Pope Francis is canceling the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in terms of renewal in continuity. That is jarring and polarizing and we see it with many Catholics quite angry/enraged about it and mystified by it.
It also seems to many that Pope Francis indeed is the worldly one in trying to please the world by accommodating the Church to worldly standards, especially as it regards human sexuality.
Finally, to say that parishes, at least in the USA, and in my two dioceses of Savannah and Charleston aren’t listening to the laity, don’t have pastoral and finance councils and don’t have a majority of women working as paid personnel is outright false and a straw man.
In my entire 43 years a a priest, all my parishes have had active lay involvement and in decision making also especially in administrative things that can and should change. If not for active laity, our parishes would perish!
28 comments:
If we have learned nothing else from this pontificate, we should at least have learned this: WE CANNOT BELIEVE THE VOICES IN THE VATICAN THAT SPEAK FOR THIS POPE. In fact, we can't even believe this pope much of the time.
For myself and millions of Catholics, Cardinal Designate Pierre's words are just more noise. And noisemakers like him and all the other popespalainers just don't understand that there are millions of us holding our ears, crying. We need a Church that will help us live our Baptismal vows, not find creative ways to make it harder or even violate them.
The concept of the development of doctrine is not an ideology. To label it as such is just plain ignorance.
Every doctrine we have has developed over time, from the doctrine of the Real Presence to the Doctrine of indissolubility of Marriage.
Brendan Murphy wrote: "Catholics, on the other hand, see the doctrines of the Church as the necessary and logical development of the Gospel. Their growth in richness and complexity represents the change from an embryonic form into maturity."
Sergio Centofanti wrote: "Two thousand years of history teach us that the development of doctrine in the Church is a people that journeys together. Journeying through the ages, the Church sees and learns new things, always growing deeper in her understanding of the Faith."
Our theology of the development of doctrine is ancient, finding one of its earliest expressions in Vincent of Lerin's Commonitorium (ca. 434).
FRJMK, I mention in my comments that there has been a huge development of doctrine as it concerns human sexuality, compared to what Scripture alone teaches us. Archbishop Fernandez states indicates that for him, what St. Paul says about human sexuality, in particular sodomy, AKA, homosexual sex acts, is just like his prohibition of women not covering their heads at church or having to cover them. To equate the two is simply nonsense. There hasn't been any doctrinal development whatsoever, to women covering their head except it became customary and only ceased a bit after Vatican II.
We have a huge body of developed magisterial teachings on sex, to include Humanae Vitae and what is in the CCC.
It is nonsense to say that we can overturn those teachings because we need to be Scripture alone and then recognize the cultural context of what was taught in the biblical era which no longer applies today according to the heterodox fundamentalists.
Father K Orwell, your Party’s views on abortion have “developed” over time such that now it is “healthcare!” Maybe the Synods will accommodate them!
Seamus Malone, well and beautifully said!
Father, you might be interested to learn about the liturgical sensibilities of one of the new cardinals, Claudio Gugerotti. As nuncio to Great Britain, he celebrated some very traditional liturgies. Take a look:
Mass for 25th anniversary of his Episcopal Ordination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H2il8fp00A
London Eucharistic Octave 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF7ZrnbSi94
He also celebrated using the Ordinariate missal at least twice, once the chrism mass for the ordinariate and the other an ordination:
Chrism Ordinariate Mass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlxEcFDKG5U
Ordination Mass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c8xui_cRWw
That certainly gives hope! Thanks for the links!
COMMON SENSE ALERT:
"Development" does not mean to reverse or contradict.
Just something for us to remember once in a while.
"Scripture alone" is a Protestant view, not a Catholic one. Had you studied in a seminary that taught the Catholic faith you would have encountered the term Sola Scriptura and understood why is is not a Catholic concept.
I'd need to see what Cardinal-elect Fernandez actually SAID, not what you report he said. Paraphrases are notoriously inaccurate as we saw with his "We don't want to convert the young people to Christ."
Fr. Allan McDonald,
Correct me if I am wrong, as I have no wish to win any contests here, but where exactly in your last reply did you even invoke the idea of Sola Scriptura? And again, I could be very wrong, but isn't it true that all of our magisterial teachings, dogmas and various points in our Catechism are in fact based on scriptures and can cite the scriptures for their origins and validation?
What a bunch of nonsense from his excellency.
‘Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no. Anything more than this comes from the evil one.’ Matthew 5:37
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - You said it, not I. "...compared to what Scripture alone teaches us." were your words. We are NOT taught by Scripture alone - the Protestant error - but by Scripture AND Tradition.
Jerome - Another COMMON SENSE ALERT: Just because you, or anyone else, reads something said by a priest, bishop, or pope and concludes that what is said or written is a reversal or a contradiction of a previous expression of doctrine does not mean that it IS a reversal or contradiction.
Fr K Orwell votes for abortion as “healthcare” which casts anything he has to say in doubt. Logic obviously is not his strong suit.
Since Father McDonald refuses to defend himself, I will foolishly jump into the fray and point out that "...compared to what scripture alone teaches us..." could be taken in other ways than the narrowly-focused interpretation his accuser would have us believe. For instance, it COULD mean:
"Before even bothering to consult other sources, just looking at the scriptures ALONE shows us..."
After all, nothing in the Church's canon of teachings violates scripture, even though we (thank God) are not "Sola Scriptura Soldiers".
It would be rather like saying, "Why I can prove that with one hand tied behind my back..."
Which brings me to a question I HAVE to ask, and I ask this in all sincerity. Father Kavanaugh, why do you immediately jump to the worst conclusions about the people posting here? Why do you consistently presume to know what we are thinking? Why do you take every post here and find the worst possible way to interpret what anyone else puts up here? I'm not going to chastise you about your voting record, because I'm not chastising you or any other priest about anything. I just don't understand why you seem to grow more hostile and supercilious with every single post you fire at this group. I'm no psychologist, but even an amateur would get the idea that you just don't like people and it's not getting better--it's getting worse. Do we all annoy and irritate you THAT much? If you are an Alter Christus, it would be nice to see a broader side of the Christ you represent than the man rebuking the pharisees or clearing away the temple marketplace. I can't bring myself to believe that anyone who would go to the trouble of becoming a priest would consistently display such hostility to so many people.
Actually I haven’t had a chance to post comments until now and the first thing for Jerome is that I don’t know the name of the church that is on my masthead. I got if off the internet.
By sola Scriptura, I refer to heterodox Catholics, usually theologians, who want to change Church doctrine but referring exclusively to Scripture alone, but not in an inerrant way, but to say that the Scripture, or at least parts of it, are time constrained and often refer to cultural traits at the time the Scriptures were written or Jesus or St. Paul or whoever offered some moral teaching or matter of discipline like women wearing head coverings.
The ploy here is to say it no longer applies. Thus we can change it. So if we can now allow women not to wear head coverings, we can also allow for sodomy or blessing non heterosexual unions and even illicit heterosexual unions since we are nnt so dumb as Saint Paul was and the early Church until about 1966, to believe that sex is a sin at all between consenting adults.
My point is that there is a development of doctrine beginning with Scripture on the doctrines of human sexuality, its proper place and how it is inked to Natural law.
We always begin with Scripture, but Tradition which is also necessary means how we teach Scripture and the handing on of the Faith through Tradition entails development. There has been quite a development on the Church teachings about sexuality and I name two of those sources, Humanae Vitae and Splendor of truth. There is no such development as it concerns women wearing head coverings. That is a discipline that can and has changed. To equate the two, as Fernandez does, to then imply we can change Scripture’s sexual teachings by referring only to it and not subsequent Tradition that develops it is absurd!
Jerome - Theology is a science. Words and phrases are its weights and measures. One word, one letter of one word out of place, and the formulation or expression is wrong.
Compare Homoiousios and Homoousios and understand the "iota" of difference.
In this instance I presume nothing. I have responded to what Fr. ALLAN McDonald SAID. That was, "FRJMK, I mention in my comments that there has been a huge development of doctrine as it concerns human sexuality, compared to what Scripture alone teaches us."
Sorry, but "Scripture alone" is not Catholic teaching - about human sexuality or anything else.
You can play amateur psychologist all you want, but it is no skin off my nose. "Getting worse?" Hardly. The back and forth I engage in with others here has been going on for years. Maybe there is something in your troubled psychology that makes it seem like it is getting worse.
No, everyone here does not annoy me. Some people present good arguments and reliable data. Others spout whatever nonsense comes to mind.
As for "so many people," try counting the number here that I disagree with. Is it 3, 4, or 5?
Is it COMMON SENSE to conflate our experience here with the real, much larger, world?
Father Kavanaugh, I don't disagree with any of your points. But for all of your exalted talk about theology being an "exact science", do you honestly think this blog is a forum for deep theological discussions? I am sure there are plenty of other ivory tower-type blogs that could satisfy your craving for such precision, but then again, I can't help but think you wouldn't want to enter such a forum. After all we had a fellow come in here a few months ago--can't remember his name--and he asked you a few questions about your theological background and your reply to him was something along the lines of "How dare you question me?"
As regards my "playing amateur psychologist", I clearly said in my previous post that I am no psychologist, but I will admit, your reply and that dig about fancying myself as an "amateur psychologist" were textbook examples of exactly the kind of retorts we've come to expect from you. It might win you some debate points, but where is the humanity? Where is the love?
And yes, for the THIRD TIME, no one here was invoking the Protestant ideal of "Sola Scriptura". But as I read the scriptures, I can't recall reading any epistle in which St. Paul chastises his readers for their inprecise thinking. Highly educated saints like Ignatius of Loyola and Francis de Sales wrote with a sense of compassion and brotherhood, not "You obviously don't get it, you peasant!"
You can label me as having my own "trouble psychology" all you like, but more and more I see nothing but arrogance and bitterness in your posts and an alarming lack of self-awareness which leaves me and many others cringing with embarrassment for your reveals of what one might politely call bitterness. I really, really hope I am wrong. I would LOVE to be proven wrong.
That's all. Feel free to verbally destroy me now. I KNOW you HAVE to have that last word.
Jerome, I think clear thinking and accuracy are appropriate on this blog AND on "ivory tower" blogs. I cannot think why you would not agree.
I am amused that you choose to point out my pointed retorts but, as far as I can see, think that yours and those pointed at me by others are perfectly OK.
You play amateur psychologist with me, but then get your shorts in a knot when I turn the tables. Talk about a lack of self-awareness...
If you don't enjoy the heat....
Ah Father, you are a master manipulator of words, and you can take that as a compliment...of sorts.
I did not say that clear thinking and accuracy are not important, but feel free to twist my words. I simply said that your demands for such precision seem to alienate you from those of us who aren't always as sharp as you are, albeit not in those words.
And, unlike you, yes, I openly admit that not only have some of my retorts been pointed, but in the case of when those retorts attacked people or attempted to define others, I was wrong in doing so.
Actually, I am wearing two pairs of shorts as I type this, a pair of boxers and some gym shorts and neither are knotted, but I get your metaphor. No, I am not upset about what you think is "turning the tables". I would expect no less from you.
I just wish we could see something from you besides Father Gotcha. I don't think Jesus OR the Apostles won any souls by asserting their superiority. I am weak, not the most intelligent, sometimes imprecise and pretty defensive when I see the Church's positions being distorted or attacked. I make no attempt to hide it. Call me names, define me, label me, fine. In the end we all answer to the SAME God. I like to think He loves us. I'd like also to see some of that reflected in your posts.
And with regard to "...if you don't enjoy the heat."
Heck Father, I don't care. You can go ahead and torch me. Sadly, I don't think you get (or are ever going to get) the degree to which you are torching your own public image.
Agree, the Church and it's parishes cannot be an army of one.
This synodal can has been kicked down the road for so long, I'm starting to forget its purposes.
A suspicion shared by many is it will be a means to push forward with an agenda.
Agree with Seamus Malone's comment above. All I can say is the Byzantine Ruthenian Church provides remarkable clarity and order to how one approaches living a Christian life. Certainly, we don't have the throngs flocking to our doors like the Romans; but, there's an understanding of mission and how to go about getting there that, perhaps, would amaze some. Our "Synodality" activities will be more focused on how to engage/re-engage, survive and carry our well cared for spiritual inheritance forward in a quickly changing world, not fundamentals.
Fr. MJK doesn't need me to defend him. I'll say, however, that I find his candor to be pointed, based on fact and while I might not share all his opinions, the fundamentals themselves are solid. How do I know this? I've looked things up during the "read more here" segment of my day. I don't generally look things up just to try and "best" someone.
"But for all of your exalted talk about theology being an "exact science", do you honestly think this blog is a forum for deep theological discussions? I am sure there are plenty of other ivory tower-type blogs that could satisfy your craving for such precision, but then again, I can't help but think you wouldn't want to enter such a forum."
I do not see any reason why this blog cannot foster deeper discussion. To just scratch the surface is living life at 50K feet. As well, perhaps one could argue that at that level, one doesn't progress beyond sound-bytes. Some Orthodox blogs that I read at times require me to look things up just to follow the discussion. That's ok. We're all learning and I've spent a lifetime looking up things about which I didn't know, or didn't readily have recall.
"After all we had a fellow come in here a few months ago--can't remember his name--and he asked you a few questions about your theological background and your reply to him was something along the lines of "How dare you question me?"
Again, I'm neither defending Fr. MJK, nor am I sucking up, but, experience has led me to approach Fr. MJK the way I would any other priest, respectfully and I don't question his credentials when so doing. Sure, it's a blog, and messaging could become muddled. So, if perhaps a response isn't understood, one might respond, "Thanks for your reply, Fr., I'm not following your thought etc." Gotcha results in gotcha. A scholarly question and approach will about always result in a scholarly response, or caring counsel/direction.
Jerome Merwick,
Father K is the clerical version of Mark Thomas which led some of us to believe that they are one and the same person: ignore inconvenient facts / glosses over evil in their own camp but quick to attribute it to the other camp.
Byz Rus,
Maybe you have a point. But in all honesty, if we are going to aim for this precision we all keep chattering on about, how about we try to do it more charitably. For example, instead of the knee-jerk accusation that Father McD holds the "Sola Scriptura" position, his fellow cleric, could have asked a polite question like, "By 'Scripture alone teaches us, did you mean this or did you mean that?"
It costs nothing to be nice to people. To immediately assume the worst intent or presume to mind read is not very conducive to an atmosphere where people feel welcome to post. Yeah, I've failed, but I'm trying. I'd like to see more of us try.
Byz - One of the reasons I like this blog is the "read more here" that it spurs me to do.
I can't walk the halls of those who can argue over the analysis of third declension words in Koine Greek. I happily leave those corridors to those who can.
People who are annoyed by those who are "sharper" than they are might consider why they react that way.
Jerome Merwick,
I appreciate your perspective though I'm not going to attempt to litigate the point. I'll just say that for my part, I try to avoid the behavior we should all eschew. I too fail from time-to-time - it's both too easy and tempting to hide behind a keyboard warrior pseudonym. Nonetheless, I really think before responding and on MANY occasions regarding this particular blog, have cancelled my post deciding it to be more destructive than constructive. I'm not saying you or others don't think before posting, I just try to approach this blog as though I'm talking to you in person and am responsible for my decorum, or lack thereof.
Despite the commentary of others, if I really dig into the Church's documents/directives, whatever, Fr. MJK has never strayed from teachings, or expectations. Publicly, and at least to me, he has no reason to doubt either his place or good name. Again, I might not agree with him on everything that falls into the category of conjecture, but, I am comfortable discussing our differences with him.
Regarding the Fr. MJK/FR. AJM dynamic, I could be wrong, but, I suspect they've been sparring partners about as long as I've walked this earth in addition to being guys talking the way guys sometimes do. They'll be fine.
TJM,
While I sincerely appreciate your support, please think about this: Whatever Fr. K or Mark Thomas might be, rubbing their noses in it isn't making anything better. If you think that Fr. K is going to suddenly start voting differently because you keep calling him out for his support of THAT party, well, good luck. If you think Mark Thomas is going to stop bloviating about how wonderful and holy certain people in the Church are just because you mock him (and he IS a tempting target) again, good luck.
People who are morbidly obese KNOW they are fat. When someone calls their attention to it, it's just plain cruel and it certainly doesn't help them in any kind of positive way. If a man is bald, calling him "baldy" doesn't do anything for his self esteem. Let's save justice for the justice system. And I say this as a recovering smart ass.
Jerome Merwick,
Fr K Orwell likely has camp followers who lap up everything he has to say and is rarely, if ever, called out on his departure from the Faith. His intellectual dishonesty is breath-taking and he really belongs in another line of work. I once was a Democratic Party official but I could no longer reconcile my Faith with THAT Party, which has gone hard to the left and is full of crazy, evil extremists. Perhaps if the Church would no longer play ball with these latter day fascists THAT Party would change its ways
Post a Comment