| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 491 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 485 Guest(s)
Bing, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yandex, Jules
|
|
|
| Reports: Vatican planning to enforce a ‘final’ ban of Traditional Latin Mass, likely on July 16 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-19-2024, 11:56 AM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments
- No Replies
|
 |
Reports: Vatican planning to enforce a ‘final’ ban of Traditional Latin Mass, likely on July 16
Sources told Rorate Caeli that Vatican officials want to ban the Latin Mass in a manner ‘as wide, final, and irreversible as possible,’ and a source informed LifeSiteNews that this ban is likely to be issued on the three-year anniversary of Traditionis Custodes.
![[Image: shutterstock_1046407054.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/shutterstock_1046407054.jpg)
Rome-Italy-10-24-2015. Holy Pontifical Mass in an ancient rite at the Saint Peter's Chair, Mass in Latin, in the Basilica of Saint Peter's in the Vatican,
pilgrimage Summorum Pontificum
Shutterstock
Jun 18, 2024
(LifeSiteNews) — Several “credible” sources informed a traditional Catholic media outlet that the Vatican is planning to issue a document “banning” the Traditional Latin Mass, and a source informed LifeSiteNews that this will likely occur on July 16.
“An attempt is being made to implement, as soon as possible, a Vatican document with a stringent, radical, and final solution banning the Traditional Latin Mass,” reported Rorate Caeli on Monday, which attributed the news to “the most credible sources, in different continents,” including from “circles close to” Cardinal Arthur Roche, the prefect for the Dicastery for Divine Worship.
These sources are reportedly “the very same… who first revealed that a document like Traditionis Custodes would come” and also “revealed to Rorate that the Vatican had sent out a survey to bishops” on their implementation of the TLM following Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which allowed widespread use of the Latin Mass.
Those planning this “final” suppression of the TLM are said by Rorate to be “frustrated” with the “apparently slow results” of Pope Francis’ Latin Mass-restricting document Traditionis Custodes, particularly in the U.S. and France, and “want to ban it and shut it down everywhere and immediately.”
These Vatican prelates, which by implication include Pope Francis and at least require his consent, reportedly wish to make this Latin Mass ban “as wide, final and irreversible as possible.” Rorate Caeli is urging people in all states of life to “prevent the ban from becoming a concrete measure.”
LifeSiteNews has received information indicating that a likely date for these expected restrictions is July 16, the anniversary of the implementation of Traditionis Custodes.
Cardinal Raymond Burke recently highlighted the fact that Traditionis Custodes has in one sense backfired, because it has intensified and multiplied attraction to the Mass of the Ages. The cardinal stated:
Quote:If the intention with the latest legislation Traditionis Custodes and other documents which followed it was to discourage or to decrease the attraction of the holy liturgy according to the Usus Antiquior, it had, I would say, the exactly opposite effect.
“This,” he added, “should not be surprising. One has to think that a form of the Roman rite which has nourished so profoundly and produced so many saints, the declared saints, even let’s say hidden saints, it is not possible that this rite be canceled, that it be eliminated from the life of the Church.”
Pope Benedict XVI himself clarified through his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum that the Latin Mass was never abolished and that no priest needs his bishop’s permission to offer it, stating, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”
Following Traditionis Custodes, Cardinal Burke affirmed that the traditional liturgy is not something that can be excluded from the “valid expression of the lex orandi.”
“It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority,” wrote the cardinal in 2021.
In accordance with this idea, liturgical scholar Dr. Peter Kwasniewski has written that priests must resist attempts to restrict the Latin Mass, including through Traditionis Custodes and its accompanying Responsa ad dubia “regardless of threats or penalties,” since obedience to these documents would undermine the very mission of the holy Catholic Church.
‘The traditional Mass belongs to the most intimate part of the common good in the Church. Restricting it, pushing it into ghettos, and ultimately planning its demise can have no legitimacy. This law is not a law of the Church because, as St. Thomas [Aquinas] says, a law against the common good is no valid law,’” he said in a speech during the 2021 Catholic Identity Conference.
True obedience “is always obedience to GOD, whether immediately or mediately,” explained Kwasniewski. Therefore, if any authority commands something contrary to God’s divine or natural law, “We must obey God rather than men,” as is declared in the Acts of the Apostles and affirmed by Pope Leo XIII.
Kwasniewski made the point that “the traditional liturgical worship of the Church, her lex orandi (law of prayer),” is a “fundamental” “expression of her lex credendi, (law of belief), one that cannot be contradicted or abolished or heavily rewritten without rejecting the Spirit-led continuity of the Catholic Church as a whole.”
To drive this home, he quoted the solemn words of St. Pius V’s bull Quo Primum, which he noted “is not ‘just a disciplinary document’ that can be readily set aside or contradicted by his successors; it is a document de rebus fidei et morum, concerning matters of faith and morals, and therefore not susceptible to being set aside by a later pontiff” – something acknowledged by “his successors who, whenever they published a new edition of the missal, were careful to preface it with Quo Primum, showing that they accepted and embraced that which Pius V had codified and canonized.”
Quo Primum states:
Quote:In virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain… that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remains always valid and retains its full force… Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act [i.e., altering Quo Primum], he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
|
|
|
| Washington governor issues directive requiring hospitals to commit ‘emergency’ abortions |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-19-2024, 11:48 AM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
|
Washington governor issues directive requiring hospitals to commit ‘emergency’ abortions
A policy statement reaffirms and clarifies the requirements under state law for hospitals to provide emergency abortion services in anticipation of a Supreme Court ruling backing conscience rights.
![[Image: jay_inslee_1-e1718744948226.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/jay_inslee_1-e1718744948226.jpg)
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee
shutterstock.com
un 18, 2024
OLYMPIA, Washington (LifeSiteNews) — Washington Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee has issued a directive meant to force hospitals to provide “medically necessary” abortions in anticipation of a pending Supreme Court ruling about medical conscience rights that many in the abortion lobby fear will not go their way.
“I hereby direct the Department of Health to issue a policy statement reaffirming and clarifying the requirements under state law for hospitals to provide emergency abortion services,” reads Inslee’s June 11 directive. “Further, I direct the Department of Health to take enforcement action, in accordance with applicable law, against those hospitals that do not provide such required care.”
“Ideological politicians are relentlessly interfering with the most private and crucial health care decisions a doctor and their patient will ever make, and now they’re doing so even when the life of a mother hangs in the balance,” the governor added in a press release. “Fortunately, we’ve taken numerous steps in Washington to make sure patients in Washington are not subject to these horrors. Hospitals and clinics in Washington have become a haven for patients seeking the abortion care they can no longer access in other states. We will meet every challenge to women’s right of choice with an unwavering affirmation that Washington is and will remain a pro-choice state.”
The move is meant to prepare for the outcome of a current case at the nation’s highest court regarding the Biden administration’s efforts to force emergency room doctors in Idaho to participate in abortions under the guise of “medical necessity.”
In August 2022, the administration filed a lawsuit contending that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Active Labor Act (EMTALA) overrides Idaho’s pro-life laws and requires emergency room doctors to commit abortions that would otherwise be illegal under state law. A lower court sided with the White House, prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case and allow Idaho to continue to enforce its pro-life laws until it is resolved.
In April, Idaho Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador, along with attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the law firm Cooper & Kirk, filed their reply brief laying out the case that the administration misreads and misapplies EMTALA in numerous ways, including that the law does not require procedures that violate state law, does not mandate services a particular hospital does not offer, and in fact requires hospitals to provide care for preborn children. The justices heard oral arguments later that month.
“We want the highest standard of care for women, and we do make an exception for abortion to save the life of the mother,” including in cases of ectopic pregnancy, Esther Ripplinger, president of Human Life of Washington, told NBC News in response to Inslee’s move. “But when you say ‘health’ is threatened — that’s an interesting proposal, because now, ‘health’ can mean, ‘Oh, I’ve got a headache, I need an abortion.’… We need to be very specific about what is that emergency and what is not.”
While some emergency situations in pregnancy can necessitate treatments indirectly resulting in a child’s death, numerous medical experts attest that intentionally killing a preborn baby is never medically necessary. Regardless, every state in the union with abortion prohibitions currently in effect also permits doctors to administer life-saving, non-abortive treatment to pregnant women even if it comes at the expense of a baby’s life.
Pro-abortion activists have long sought to keep abortion debates focused on such situations to divert attention from the vast majority of abortions that are sought for far less “sympathetic” reasons. They have gotten mileage out of that approach, which has helped defeat pro-lifers in recent state ballot referendums and convinced national Republicans to take a more moderate stance on life this year.
However, data released late last month by the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, covering roughly 123,000 abortions across eight states in 2021 (the last full year that Roe v. Wade mandated legal abortion nationwide), found that alleged “risks to a woman’s life or a major bodily function” constituted just 0.3 percent of women’s reasons for abortion.
|
|
|
|
| Bishops of Turkey consecrate country to Sacred Heart of Jesus |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-19-2024, 11:42 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Bishops of Turkey consecrate country to Sacred Heart of Jesus
In initiating the consecration, a Turkish priest was inspired by the ‘spiritual fruits’ of the consecration of Ecuador to the Sacred Heart that occurred 150 years ago.
![[Image: Shutterstock_1689358282.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Shutterstock_1689358282.jpg)
Shutterstock
Jun 18, 2024
IZMIR, Turkey (LifeSiteNews) — Turkey joined the ranks of more than 20 countries consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus on Friday, June 7, the feast of the Sacred Heart.
Monsignor Marek Solczyński, apostolic nuncio to Turkey, presided over the consecration to the Sacred Heart at St. John’s Cathedral, Izmir, “surrounded by almost all the bishops of the country’s four Catholic communities — Latin, Armenian, Syriac, and Chaldean,” according to the National Catholic Register.
The idea of consecration came from Father Alessandro Amprino, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Izmir who will represent the Turkish Catholic Church in Quito, Ecuador at the 53rd International Eucharistic Congress. The South American country was the first in the world to become consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in 1874, 150 years ago, as requested by President Gabriel García Moreno.
Since then, 24 countries were consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Fatima, Portugal, at the request of their bishops’ conferences, including Portugal, Albania, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Slovakia, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Mexico, Moldova, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Kenya, the Dominican Republic, Romania, Spain, Tanzania, East Timor, and Zimbabwe.
Amprino explained that he was inspired by the “enthusiasm” and “spiritual fruits” of Ecuador’s consecration, the Register reported. He proposed the idea to the Turkish Episcopal Conference (CET) as a special way to celebrate Turkey’s national Eucharistic year of the Catholic Church, which has been organized this year together with Quito’s bishops.
The consecration is to be complemented by a spiritual retreat for religious in Iskenderun as well as the conclusion of the national Eucharistic year on November 24.
Archbishop Martin Kmetec, OFM Conv., of Izmir, president of the bishops’ conference, said that the purpose of the consecration was “to rediscover and renew the consecration which took place on the day of baptism, to renounce the seductions of evil to live in the freedom of the children of God, to place one’s whole life in the hands of Christ, even in the face of violence.”
His comments come almost five months after a terrorist attack was carried out at the church of the Nativity of Our Lady in Büyükdere.
The origins of devotion to the Sacred Heart come from an apparition of Christ to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in Paris in the 1670s, when he revealed the love of His Sacred Heart for the world and asked for reparation for the sins of sacrilege and blasphemy.
|
|
|
|
| The Holy Emulation between Two Great Saints |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-18-2024, 08:21 AM - Forum: The Saints
- No Replies
|
|
The Holy Emulation between Two Great Saints
by Hugh O’Reilly
TIA | June 15, 2024
In 1264, when Pope Urban IV instituted the Feast of Corpus Christi, he asked St. Bonaventure, a Franciscan, and St. Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican, to each compose a liturgy for the Mass and Office for this great Feast. On a designated day, each would read his manuscript before the Holy Father, who would decide which text would be chosen for the Feast Day celebration.
![[Image: H261_con.jpg]](https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/H261_con.jpg)
St. Thomas reads his Corpus Christi Liturgy to Urban IV; at left, St. Bonaventure shreds his own text
The day arrived. St. Thomas was chosen to be the first to present his text, in deference to his position as Lector of the Sacred Palace. As St. Thomas stood and read his text, St. Bonaventure, with great humility and tears of emotion in eyes eyes, turned aside and tore up the manuscript that he was holding.
Turning to the Holy Father, he said: “Your Holiness, it is as if I heard the Holy Spirit speak, for only the Holy Spirit can inspire such beautiful thoughts. I cannot compare my poor essay with such a perfect masterpiece. This is all that remains of it.”
And he showed the Pope the shredded papers.
The Pope, impressed with this humility and with the greatness of the text of St. Thomas, determined that the work of the Angelic Doctor should henceforth be used for the liturgy of the Mass and the Office of that day. Thus was St. Thomas declared winner of the holy emulation.
Among the beautiful texts composed by St. Thomas Aquinas that echo in the churches during the Solemnity of the Corpus Christi are the following: Adoro te Devote, Sauda Sion Salvatorem (the sequence), Sacris Solmniis (which included the Panis Angelicus), Pange Lingua Gloriosi (including its last two stanzas the Tantum Ergo), and Verbum Supernum (including its last two stanzas, the O Salutaris.
The Angelic Doctor is recognized as one of the great hymnologists of the Church although he produced only 188 lines.
![[Image: H261_Pro.jpg]](https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/images_F-J/H261_Pro.jpg)
A grandiose Corpus Christi procession from the past |
|
|
|
| Australian Premier Creates Ministry In Charge Of 'Changing Men's Behavior' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-18-2024, 08:17 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Australian Premier Creates Ministry In Charge Of 'Changing Men's Behavior'
ZH | JUN 18, 2024
The development of totalitarian governments always coincides with sweeping efforts to socially engineer the population to adhere to less rebellious behaviors. Specific groups that present a threat to the regime are usually identified and targeted with propaganda or indoctrination. In tandem, the rest of the population is also conditioned to fear those groups and treat them with suspicion. In this way the establishment elites mold the more submissive public into a shield that protects them from the revolutionaries that might dethrone them.
But what happens when the social engineers want to create tyranny on a global scale? The list of possible rebels grows exponentially larger and efforts to control them all or demonize them all become far more complex. How can the elites simplify their agenda and suppress the public with more efficiency?
The only answer is to attack and cripple the largest subset of the population that is most likely to give them problems in the future. Which monolithic group is more likely to fight back against the system? Obviously, the answer is masculine men. Therefore, this new global regime seeks to undermine and sabotage men, labeling masculinity an existential danger to society, like nuclear weapons or global warming.
In recent years Australia has been at the forefront of many authoritarian experiments. Their egregious violations of citizen liberties during the covid hysteria were astonishing. Perhaps even worse has been the complete takeover of DEI within the Australian government along with the infestation of radical feminism. Australia, it would seem, is all but lost to the nightmare of the woke religion.
That's why it's not at all surprising that the the Premier of the Australian state of Victoria has created a new ministry tasked with the purpose of changing and perhaps even controlling men.
Jacinta Allan announced this month that state MP Tim Richardson would serve as the inaugural Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behavior Change – the first position of its kind in the country. The appointment was in response to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calling gender-based violence a “national crisis” and promising greater government action. First, Australia blamed guns for violent crime; now they are blaming men in general.
The mainstream media claims the new effort is in response to a 'crisis of sexist violence against women.' The problem is that the data doesn't support this. Hospital records for assaults and homicides in Australia show a steady decline among men and women in the past two decades, and they also show that men are much more likely to face victimization compared to women.
Of course, it all depends on how the government defines "sexist violence." Does this include contrary ideas or mean words? Let's not forget that for progressives words can be the same as violence. Interestingly, Tim Richardson suggested that his role will focus primarily on the internet and how it "affects men's attitudes towards women." In other words, the government likely wants to control speech on the web to prevent "toxic" male behaviors.
It is not the job of "all men" to take responsibility of the crimes of a tiny handful. It is not the job of government to mold the behavior of the citizenry.
All western nations have been involved in the campaign to demonize men in one form or another, utilizing third-wave feminism as a vehicle. Australia is simply acting as a beta test for similar programs to be implemented in other countries.
The use of feminism is necessary to fabricate a rationale; they can't merely attack men for being men or attack men for being potentially rebellious against authoritarian government, there has to be a "victim" that needs protection so that the attack on men appears justified. Those who defend masculinity are thus by extension accused of threatening the safety of women.
In other words, the totalitarians become the "good guys" because they supposedly have women's best interests at heart. And, since men are everywhere, the totalitarians need to be everywhere too so they can keep that terrifying masculinity at bay. The global regime suddenly becomes sacrosanct; a precious defender of women's safety.
Of course, none of this is true. The establishment's obsession with the cult of transsexualism is proof of that. Their insistence that women are nothing more than a "social construct" that can be replaced by mentally ill men in wigs and makeup leaves little doubt that femininity is being targeted nearly as much as masculinity. But the hyperfocus on men is logical if one accepts the possibility that the goal of these programs is to weaken western societies to the point that they are easy to conquer. In this way, the war on masculine men makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
| Military Draft Coming? House Passes Measure To Automatically Register Men For Selective Service |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-16-2024, 08:25 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
Military Draft Coming? House Passes Measure To Automatically Register Men For Selective Service
From Congressional push:
Quote:The automatic draft registration proposal was instigated by the Selective Service System (SSS) as part of its annual budget request to Congress, introduced by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), “wholeheartedly” endorsed by HASC Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), and approved by voice vote of the full committee without audible opposition. The text of Rep. Houlahan’s proposal can be read here. Her office’s press release on the proposal can be read here.
Rep. Houlahan had been one of the leading advocates of proposals in previous years to expand draft registration to women as well as men. Her latest proposal for automatic registration of men only for a military draft indicates that she is more deeply committed to militarization than to any purported feminism.
|
|
|
|
| UK Requires Residents to Register Chickens |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-15-2024, 07:52 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- No Replies
|
|
UK Requires Residents to Register Chickens – New rules for all poultry keepers
![[Image: f16b7626-1ff7-4402-81da-93911e5b1414_800...00&scale=1]](https://media.nfuonline.com/Uploaded_Files/_media/236/f16b7626-1ff7-4402-81da-93911e5b1414_800.jpg?ratio=1.875&width=800&scale=1)
First published 22 March 2024
New rules on registering poultry are coming into force this year and backyard birdkeepers will need to officially register their flock regardless of the number.
Previously, only people with more than 50 birds were required to register, but the new measures announced by Defra has reduced this to anyone with just one bird.
Defra consulted on the changes in March last year and has this week announced that the government, along with the devolved administrations, has agreed to make the following changes in England, Wales and Scotland:
- The threshold for mandatory registration will be reduced from 50 birds to 1, which means all poultry and captive bird keepers will be legally required to register their birds.
- Poultry keepers will be required to review their poultry register entry annually to ensure their details are up to date.
Key dates
The requirement for all poultry keepers to register will come into force in autumn 2024, with the requirement for an annual review to be introduced 12 months later. Budgies, parrots, canaries and similar species that are kept indoors or in a dedicated ‘bird house’ without any outside access will be exempt from the above changes.
In England and Wales, keepers are encouraged to register their birds ahead of the legal deadline on 1 October 2024.
Bird keepers will need to provide information, including their contact details, the location where birds are kept and details of the birds (species, number and what they are kept for).
The government said the changes would help manage potential disease outbreaks, such as avian influenza, and limit any spread.
The information on the register will also be used to identify all bird keepers in disease control zones, allowing for more effective surveillance, so that zones can be lifted at the earliest possible opportunity.
NFU Poultry Board chair James Mottershead said the NFU was pleased to see Defra and the devolved governments taking steps to improve the accuracy and the relevance of the information it holds on poultry keepers of all scales and sizes.
He said: “It’s important that the government now focuses on making the process of registering, reviewing and updating the GB Poultry Register as straightforward as possible to minimise the administrative burden on all poultry keepers.
“These changes should help the government communicate important information to all poultry keepers in a more timely manner, which in turn will help protect the health of the national flock.”
There have been more than 360 cases of avian influenza across Great Britain since October 2021, including a significant number of backyard flocks.
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis approves new document elevating ecumenism and synodality above papal primacy |
|
Posted by: Stone - 06-14-2024, 08:16 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- Replies (1)
|
|
Pope Francis approves new document elevating ecumenism and synodality above papal primacy
The new ‘study document’ from the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Promotion of Christian Unity emphasizes an intimate link between papal primacy and synodality, advocating for decentralization, granting more authority at regional levels while enhancing ecumenism.
![[Image: Untitled-9.png]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-9.png)
Pope Francis is met by Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, Ieronimos II as he arrives on the Greek island of Lesbos at Mytilene airport on April 16, 2016, in Mytilene, Lesbos, Greece
Photo by Milos Bicanski/Getty Images
Jun 13, 2024
This article was originally published by PerMariam: Mater Dolorosa.
VATICAN CITY (PerMariam - slightly adapted, not all hyperlinks included) — The Vatican has unveiled a pivotal document on the papacy, which contains numerous calls to fundamentally alter the understanding of the practice of papal primacy and authority in order to aid ecumenism and synodality.
Titled “The Bishop of Rome. Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical Ut unum sint,” the text was launched via a press conference in Rome, June 13.
Billed as “the first document to summarize the entire ecumenical debate on the service of primacy in the Church since the Second Vatican Council,” the document is the fruit of almost four years of “truly ecumenical and synodal work.” The text presents the results of a process initiated by the Dicastery for the Promotion of Christian Unity (DPCU) in 2020, which saw the 25th anniversary of Ut Unum Sint.
The document, drawn up under the guidance of the DPCU, has received input from “Orthodox and Protestant theologians,” as well as the Roman Curia and the Synod of Bishops. As such, the text is a “study document”: not presenting a new line which the Vatican is set to adhere to – at least not yet – but giving a strong indication of probably future direction on the papacy which may soon emerge, partially from the Synod on Synodality.
As with many elements of the Catholic Church today, ecumenism is at the fore. The dicastery summarized that following Vatican II the “ecumenical dimension” of the papacy “has been an essential aspect of this ministry.”
Writing his preface to the 150-page document, DPCU prefect Cardinal Kurt Koch noted that:
Quote:It is our hope that it will promote not only the reception of the dialogues on this important topic [the papacy], but also stimulate further theological investigation and practical suggestions, ‘together, of course,’ for an exercise of the ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome ‘recognized by all concerned’ (UUS 95).
Indeed, The Bishop of Rome appears to present the blueprint for a new understanding of the papacy and papal primacy in the 21st century, an era marked by a focus on ecumenism and “synodality.” As noted in the document itself:
Quote:The following pages offer a schematic presentation of
(1) the responses to Ut unum sint and documents of the theological dialogues devoted to the question of primacy;
(2) the main theological questions traditionally challenging papal primacy, and some significant advances in contemporary ecumenical reflection;
(3) some perspectives for a ministry of unity in a reunited Church; and
(4) practical suggestions or requests addressed to the Catholic Church.
This synthesis is based both on the responses to Ut unum sint and on the results of the official and unofficial dialogues concerning the ministry of unity at the universal level. It uses the terminology adopted by these documents, with its advantages and limitations.
Windswept House? Primacy or committees?
The document’s theological arguments and essays are followed by a summary along with “practical suggestions or requests addressed to the Catholic Church” regarding the future exercise of the office of the papacy. As with other elements of current ecclesial life, the text bears a peculiar resemblance to Malachi Martin’s Windswept House, in which the globalist and Masonic-aligned cardinals are attempting to force the “Slavic Pope” to resign by arguing that for him to do so would help the damaged unity of the Church, and improve relations between the (heterodox) bishops and the pope.
Though not aimed at forcing Pope Francis to resign – since he has approved of The Bishop of Rome and ordered its promulgation, the DCPU’s text appears aimed at changing the papacy generally, not at any pope in particular. The “principles for the exercise of primacy in the 21st century” present a change in understanding of the papacy which would be at the service of ecumenism and synodality, the text outlines.
Papal primacy, the DCPU’s text states, should be intimately linked with synodality – reflecting the current wave of thought sweeping through the Church at the instigation of Pope Francis. “A first general agreement is the mutual interdependency of primacy and synodality at each level of the Church, and the consequent requirement for a synodal exercise of primacy,” the DCPU’s text reads.
img=400x250]https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F94a1a5c1-80cb-47fe-9618-08b46039dffa_1086x724.jpeg[/img]
Cdl. Kurt Koch. [Credit: Michael Haynes]
Another point agreed on by the numerous ecumenical bodies involved in writing the text is that the papacy should be understood in a new sense by opening the door to decentralization of power. In this light, a call is made for synodality to be effected by granting more power to the “regional” levels of the Catholic Church, and “a continuing ‘decentralization’ inspired by the model of the ancient patriarchal Churches.”
Moving on, the text then presents the “practical suggestions” from all the ecumenical dialogues and bodies involved, before adding a further couple of suggestions from the DCPU in particular.
Even before the concrete and “practical suggestions” are presented – giving the DCPU’s ecumenical assessment on how to increase ecumenical unity and synodality by changes to the papacy – the subtext is remarkably clear: in the modern “enlightened” age in which the Church now exists, and given the self-understanding of “synodality” which is now endemic, papal primacy should be quietly faded out.
First change: Primacy a historical fad?
First on the DCPU’s list of “practical suggestions” is a call for a “re-interpretation” of the teachings of Vatican I – the council which issued the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus which outlines the primacy and infallibility of the pope, two ecumenical stumbling blocks. Pastor Aeternus reads:
Quote:We teach and declare that, according to the Gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord… Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ Himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.
These teachings appear to be in the crosshairs of the DCPU via The Bishop of Rome. They call for “a Catholic ‘re-reception,’ ‘re-interpretation,’ ‘official interpretation,’ ‘updated commentary’ or even ‘rewording’ of the teachings of Vatican I.” The document states that some of the contributors to its compilation have argued that Vatican I’s “teachings were deeply conditioned by their historical context, and suggest that the Catholic Church should look for new expressions and vocabulary faithful to the original intention but integrated into a communio ecclesiology and adapted to the current cultural and ecumenical context.”
“Deeply conditioned by the historical context,” should be interpreted as “no longer acceptable for the brave, modern world in which we now live.”
Second change: Stick to the diocese of Rome to ‘renew’ the papacy
Continuing the Windswept House theme, the DCPU presents its second suggestion for how to alter the papacy. Just as the scheming cardinals in Windswept House presented a forced papal resignation as a good thing for ecclesial unity, so also the DCPU presents a stripping of papal power as a means to “renew the image of the papacy.”
The DCPU issues a request for “a clearer distinction between the different responsibilities of the Bishop of Rome,” which would, it argues, aid his “ministry of unity.” This call includes the desire for how “other Western Churches might relate to the Bishop of Rome as primate while having a certain autonomy themselves” – arguably translated as “will the Pope please consider himself just the bishop of an important diocese, and allow other ‘primates’ to enjoy some equitable power like he does?”
Indeed, the DCPU goes so far as to make this very argument, removing the need for the customary interpretation of Vatican-style linguistics. “A greater accent on the exercise of the ministry of the Pope in his own particular Church, the diocese of Rome, would highlight the episcopal ministry he shares with his brother bishops, and renew the image of the papacy,” the DCPU recommends.
Third change: Ecumenism demands more synodality, including for the papacy
If it was not already clear that the two watchwords of the modern church are “ecumenism” and “synodality,” the DCPU makes such crystal clear in its third suggestion on how to reassess the papacy. The DCPU wrote that the theological dialogues involved in compiling the document had identified how “a growing synodality is required within the Catholic Church,” which would be evidenced by increasing the authority of bishops’ conferences. The text reads:
Quote:Putting an emphasis on the reciprocal relation between the Catholic Church’s synodal shaping ad intra and the credibility of her ecumenical commitment ad extra, they identified areas in which a growing synodality is required within the Catholic Church. They suggest in particular further reflection on the authority of national and regional Catholic bishops’ conferences, their relationship with the Synod of Bishops and with the Roman Curia.
At the universal level, they stress the need for a better involvement of the whole People of God in the synodal processes. In a spirit of the ‘exchange of gifts,’ procedures and institutions already existing in other Christian communions could serve as a source of inspiration.
Fourth change: More ecumenical meetings
Pope Francis has continued to champion the cause of ecumenical meetings between religious leaders throughout his papacy, increasingly linking it to the current Synod on Synodality. These encounters appear set to continue under the spirit of The Bishop of Rome, since the DCPU highlights them as its fourth recommended change.
“A last proposal is the promotion of ‘conciliar fellowship’ through regular meetings among Church leaders at a worldwide level in order to make visible and deepen the communion they already share,” the text reads. “In the same spirit, many dialogues have proposed different initiatives to promote synodality between Churches, especially at the level of bishops and primates, through regular consultations and common action and witness.”
Commentators have long expressed concerns about the effect of such ecumenical meetings (like holding joint Catholic-Anglican vespers in the Basilica of St. Paul’s outside the Walls in Rome) since they create the impression that the Catholic Church and the Pope are on an equal footing with all the multitude of religions customarily represented at such events.
img=400x250]https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F370599f4-37c1-4b18-994f-d58609083629_810x500.jpeg[/img]
Pope Francis and Justin Welby at ecumenical Vespers, January 25, 2024. [Credit: Michael Haynes]
Speaking to this correspondent in Rome last year, Bishop Athanasius Schneider attested that modern ecumenism “undermines the truth that there is only one Church of God and this is the Catholic Church, the Church of Peter, united with the Holy See, the chair of Peter – the popes.”
While the Vatican heavily promotes interreligious actions, Schneider stated that “such gestures, or inter-religious meetings, are undermining these truths, and therefore these actions have to change.”
He added that Catholics must ensure that charity is always practiced with non-Catholics, but they must also inform non-Catholics “that they are unfortunately in an objective error, and that they are called by God to join the Holy Mother Church which is the Catholic Church, which is the will of God.”
Goodbye to the ‘universal Church’
Amongst the specific aims of the DCPU’s own direct recommendations, which conclude the text, is a peculiarly convoluted argument against understanding the Catholic Church as “universal.” “It seems particularly necessary to clarify the meaning of the expression ‘universal Church,’” the DCPU writes, employing another standard phrase, “clarify the meaning,” which is more correctly interpreted as “reject.”
The DCPU declared that “since the 19 century, the catholicity of the Church has often been understood as its worldwide dimension, in a ‘universalistic’ way.” This understanding, Cdl. Koch’s dicastery argues, “does not take sufficient account of the distinction between the Ecclesia universalis (the ‘universal Church’ in the geographical sense) and the Ecclesia universa (the ‘whole Church,’ the ‘entire Church’), the latter being the more traditional expression in the Catholic magisterium.”
By having “a merely geographical notion of the catholicity of the Church,” the DCPU wrote that a risk exists of “giving rise to a secular conception of a ‘universal primacy’ in a ‘universal Church,’ and consequently to a secular understanding of the extension and constraints of such a primacy.”
Instead, the DCPU urged a shift in the understanding of the universal Church and the power necessary to govern such a universal body. “Roman primacy should be understood not so much as a universal power in a universal Church (Ecclesia universalis), but as an authority in service to the communion between the Churches (communio Ecclesiarum), that is to the whole Church (Ecclesia universa).” That is to say, once the language is stripped away, the papacy should not seek to exercise its divine authority – the authority outlined in Pastor Aeternus – and instead work on using a restrained practice of power to foster ecumenical unity.
Conclusion
Tying all its many pages together, The Bishop of Rome concludes by urging the acceptance of the suggestions and recommendations made, in order to make a renewal – an unqualified renewal – of the “exercise of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome” and to further aid ecumenical unity.
“Building on the above principles and recommendations, which are fruits of common ecumenical reflection, it may be possible for the Catholic Church to renew the exercise of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome and to propose a model of communion based on ‘a service of love recognised by all concerned’ (UUS 95),” the text opines.
As is already widely documented, modern ecumenism has as its aim simple unity, not unity as outlined in the traditional teaching of the Church. For the papacy to become directly subordinated to the modern form of ecumenism would appear to be the next stage in a long process of ecumenical “walking together” – together, but away from truth.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: MensChange1.jpg?itok=Eqyqc9aL]](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/MensChange1.jpg?itok=Eqyqc9aL)
