“[I]t is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device.”
— Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei §62 (1947)
Last week, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the ongoing Synod of Bishops that was established by Pope Paul VI in 1965, Pope Francis made a number of remarks about his vision of the Church’s structure and future, remarks which have raised not a few eyebrows in the world of Catholic commentary. In this post I will focus on only a small portion of Francis’s address, in order to show how well founded the concerns of the eyebrow-raisers are.
According to Francis:
[I]t is precisely on this way of synodality where we find the pathway that God expects from the Church of the third millennium. [As opposed to the Church of all ages?] …
As a constitutive dimension of the Church, synodality gives us the more appropriate [than what?] interpretive framework to understand the hierarchical ministry. If we understand as St. John Chrysostom did, that “church and synod are synonymous,” [citation, please?] since the Church means nothing other than [?] the common journey of the Flock of God along the paths of history towards the encounter of Christ Lord [sic], then we understand that within the Church, no one can be raised up higher than the others. On the contrary, in the Church, it is necessary that each person be “lowered” in order to serve his or her brothers and sisters along the way.
Jesus founded the Church by placing at its head the Apostolic College [sic], in which the apostle Peter is the “rock” (cfr. Mt 16:18)1 I am aware that the metaphor of the rock places St. Peter at the base of the Church, but Pope Francis is the one who chose to invert the hierarchical metaphor. In any case, what the metaphor of Peter as Rock is meant to suggest is strength and stability. If the argument is that St. Peter can’t be both the base and the head of the Church, then neither can Christ, which proves too much, to say the least., the one who will confirm his brothers in the faith (cfr. Lk 22: 32). But in this church, as in an inverted pyramid, the summit is located below the base. For those who exercise this authority are called “ministers” because, according to the original meaning of the word, they are the least of all. It is in serving the people of God that each Bishop becomes for that portion of the flock entrusted to him, vicarius Christi, (vicar of that Jesus who at the Last Supper stooped to wash the feet of the Apostles (cfr. Jn 13: 1-15 ). And in a similar manner, the Successor of Peter is none other than the servus servorum Dei (Servant of the servants of God). …
As I have said, “In a Church Synod it is not appropriate for the Pope to replace the local Episcopates in the discernment of all the problems that lie ahead in their territories. In this sense, I feel the need to proceed in a healthy “decentralization.”
These remarks recall comments Francis made in Evangelii Gaudium (§32):
The papacy and the central structures of the universal Church also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion [?]. The Second Vatican Council stated that, like the ancient patriarchal Churches, episcopal conferences are in a position “to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegial spirit”. Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated. Excessive centralization [per se], rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.
Now, no one can fault the Holy Father’s oratorical skills (when he chooses to read from the script, that is), but he’s not the only one with an “interpretive framework” up his sleeve.
Long ago, in a land called Catholica, a little ol’ thing called the First Vatican Council had the gall to solemnly and infallibly make its own claims about the “constitutive dimension[s] of the Church” (to borrow Francis’s phraseology). Unfortunately, the difference between that Council’s teaching and Francis’s oratory could not be starker.
To wit:
[I]f anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle [as opposed to the collective “Apostolic College”] was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema. …
[W]e teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd.
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles [i.e., the Apostolic College] by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.”
6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power….
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
— Vatican I, Session 4, Pastor Aeternus, chapters 1, 3 (1870)
The “inverted pyramid” of journalism (and Bergoglian ecclesiology?)
“Tell me more about this inverted pyramid of yourn, Pharaoh Phrancis!”2 “What Catholics Believe: sketch-talks” by Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, S.V.D. (1977), page 31. HT to the “Call Me Jorge” blog for this image.
Having played this game before, I fully expect the retort to this damning contradiction to be along the lines of, “Well, Francis wasn’t speaking infallibly“—I’ll say he wasn’t!—or perhaps that “Francis is respecting the spirit of Vatican I, if not the letter, by way of a deeper, more holistic ressourcement of the biblical and patristic kerygma of the first millennium”—though, thankfully, this level of pious bafflegab3 Yes, Virginia, our educated betters in the Church are just as enamored of polysyllabic bullshit as their secular counterparts. has not had as much success infecting the minds of healthy Catholic layfolk.
But… hope is a virtue… so…
Perhaps we can call another synod to get the job done?
Until that boggy day arrives, however, I leave you with three messages from Pope Pius XII. May his words be like pebbles in the mouths of desert wanderers as we march on through the New Springtime, the Church’s Mirkwood, gloomy, dank, and seemingly inescapable.
The Church of our times cannot return purely and simply to the rudimentary forms of the first tiny flock. In her maturity, which is not old age, she holds her head high and shows in her members the unfailing vigor of her youth; she remains what she has been since her foundation; always the same. She changes neither in in her teaching nor in her strength; she is unassailable, indestructible, invincible. She is unchangeable, inalterable in the charter of her foundation which was sealed by the Blood of the Son of God; and yet she moves, yet she clothes herself in new forms as she advances with the times, progressing always without changing her nature…. The Church certainly can look proudly and fearlessly [dare I say “triumphantly?”] at her past, at the gigantic edifice … of her magisterium and her discipline, an edifice raised in virtue of the full development and study of the truth confided to her…. The Church, now arrived at the maturity of her mission as universal mother of all believers, faced with needs and duties which are vaster than ever, could not consent, without being unfaithful to herself, to turn back to the forms of life and action of primitive Christianity.
— Radio Message to the world, May 13, 1942 (as cited in Papal Teachings: The Church [Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1962], p. 523 [Shut up, Pharisee, that’s not ex cathedra!])
[T]he Church of Christ, today, in what concerns her visible aspect, [is] more perfect, more complete, more developed than in the dawn of her nativity and the first stages of her external manifestation. Today the Church, with her … [countless] faithful spread over the face of the earth, needs quite another cohesiveness, different bonds of organization and laws, a more effective guidance by means of a central government, than in primitive times when Christians numbered only a few thousand, and, with very rare exceptions, belonged to the very State and civilization of the Roman Empire itself. But the structure of the Church in its essential characteristics and in its interior life was then, as always, the same, even more in certain points than historical research would have led us to expect. In her maturity which knows no enfeeblement, the Church has not changed the expression of her face; her voice, keeping its own unalterable tonality. has acquired still more vigor and force. …
The Church established on Peter and his successors, and she alone, must be the Church of Christ, one in herself and destined to remain until the end of time by means of submission to a personal and visible Head. …
In the succession of Roman Pontiffs there are many who, like the Prince of the Apostles, have sealed with their own blood their fidelity to Him whose visible representatives they were. … There were others whose purely human qualities corresponded less accurately to the dignity of their supreme [that word again!] pastoral office. [Shhhh…] But the most formidable tempests unleashed from the time of the Apostle Peter down to our own have not been able to shake the Church or prejudice the divine mission of her Rulers. Each Pope, in the very moment in which he accepts his election, receives it immediately from Christ with the same power and with the same privileges of infallibility.
If ever should come a day—We say this as a matter of pure hypothesis—when the physical reality of Rome were to crumble …, even then the Church would not, by that fact, be overthrown or undermined…. Thus it is: Rome the Eternal in the Christian and supernatural sense, is superior to the Rome of history. Her nature and her truth are independent of the historic City.
— Allocution to Roman students, January 30, 1949 (as cited in Papal Teachings: The Church [Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1962], p. 641 [Shut up, rad trad, that’s not ex cathedra!])
The Church of Christ … does not beg for favors; the threats of disgrace of earthly powers do not intimidate her. She does not meddle in questions which are purely political or economic; she does not care to debate on the utility or the lack of it in one or another form of government. …
Now, it is well known what the totalitarian and anti-religious state exacts and expects of her as the price of her toleration…. This is what it wants her to be:
a Church that will be silent, when she should speak;
a Church that will water down God’s law, adapting it to the tastes of the human will when she should proclaim it aloud and defend it;
a Church that would detach itself from the unshakable foundation on which Christ built it, and take up a convenient position on the moving sands of the opinions of the day, or yield herself to the passing currents; …
a Church that, with shameful servility, will remain enclosed in the four walls of the temple, forgetting the divine mandate received from Christ: “Go ye into the highways; teach all men”.4 Wait a sec, hold on—I thought this idea of going outside the safety of our Church walls began with Pope Francis!
— Allocution to the faithful of Rome, February 20, 1949 (as cited in Papal Teachings: The Church [Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1962], p. 643 [Shut up, batlike rosary-counter, that’s not ex cathedra!])
Happy pebbles, gang!
Footnotes
| ↑1 | I am aware that the metaphor of the rock places St. Peter at the base of the Church, but Pope Francis is the one who chose to invert the hierarchical metaphor. In any case, what the metaphor of Peter as Rock is meant to suggest is strength and stability. If the argument is that St. Peter can’t be both the base and the head of the Church, then neither can Christ, which proves too much, to say the least. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | “What Catholics Believe: sketch-talks” by Rev. Lawrence G. Lovasik, S.V.D. (1977), page 31. HT to the “Call Me Jorge” blog for this image. |
| ↑3 | Yes, Virginia, our educated betters in the Church are just as enamored of polysyllabic bullshit as their secular counterparts. |
| ↑4 | Wait a sec, hold on—I thought this idea of going outside the safety of our Church walls began with Pope Francis! |
From VIS this morning. The Synod does not seem to have sharpened the pope’s thinking or disciplined his speech; he is still in the running for one of the most disastrous personalities to occupy the See of Peter. He uses near the end of his talk the very tired image of “journeying”, but neglects pointedly to even hint where this “journey” will take us. It’s cold comfort to realize things really can’t get much worse than this. Read his words and weep.
The Church’s first duty is not to hand down condemnations or anathemas, but to proclaim God’s mercy
Vatican City, 24 October 2015 (VIS) – The final General Congregation of the 14 th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops concluded today with an address from Pope Francis. The Holy Father spoke about how these three weeks of intense work have had different meanings for families, the Christian community and the Church, and reiterated that “the true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit; not ideas but people; not formulae but the gratuitousness of God’s love and forgiveness”.
The following are extensive extracts from the Pope’s address:
“As I followed the labours of the Synod, I asked myself: What will it mean for the Church to conclude this Synod devoted to the family?
Certainly, the Synod was not about settling all the issues having to do with the family, but rather attempting to see them in the light of the Gospel and the Church’s tradition and two-thousand-year history, bringing the joy of hope without falling into a facile repetition of what is obvious or has already been said.
Surely it was not about finding exhaustive solutions for all the difficulties and uncertainties which challenge and threaten the family, but rather about seeing these difficulties and uncertainties in the light of the Faith, carefully studying them and confronting them fearlessly, without burying our heads in the sand.
It was about urging everyone to appreciate the importance of the institution of the family and of marriage between a man and a woman, based on unity and indissolubility, and valuing it as the fundamental basis of society and human life.
It was about listening to and making heard the voices of the families and the Church’s pastors, who came to Rome bearing on their shoulders the burdens and the hopes, the riches and the challenges of families throughout the world.
It was about showing the vitality of the Catholic Church, which is not afraid to stir dulled consciences or to soil her hands with lively and frank discussions about the family.
It was about trying to view and interpret realities, today’s realities, through God’s eyes, so as to kindle the flame of faith and enlighten people’s hearts in times marked by discouragement, social, economic and moral crisis, and growing pessimism.
It was about bearing witness to everyone that, for the Church, the Gospel continues to be a vital source of eternal newness, against all those who would “indoctrinate” it in dead stones to be hurled at others.
It was also about laying bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.
It was about making clear that the Church is a Church of the poor in spirit and of sinners seeking forgiveness, not simply of the righteous and the holy, but rather of those who are righteous and holy precisely when they feel themselves poor sinners.
It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God, and to transmit the beauty of Christian Newness, at times encrusted in a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible.
In the course of this Synod, the different opinions which were freely expressed – and at times, unfortunately, not in entirely well-meaning ways – certainly led to a rich and lively dialogue; they offered a vivid image of a Church which does not simply ‘rubber stamp’, but draws from the sources of her faith living waters to refresh parched hearts.
And – apart from dogmatic questions clearly defined by the Church’s Magisterium – we have also seen that what seems normal for a bishop on one continent, is considered strange and almost scandalous – almost! – for a bishop from another; what is considered a violation of a right in one society is an evident and inviolable rule in another; what for some is freedom of conscience is for others simply confusion. Cultures are in fact quite diverse, and every general principle – as I said, dogmatic questions clearly defined by the Church’s Magisterium – every general principle needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied. The 1985 Synod, which celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, spoke of inculturation as ‘the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity, and the taking root of Christianity in the various human cultures’. Inculturation does not weaken true values, but demonstrates their true strength and authenticity, since they adapt without changing; indeed they quietly and gradually transform the different cultures.
We have seen, also by the richness of our diversity, that the same challenge is ever before us: that of proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of today, and defending the family from all ideological and individualistic assaults.
And without ever falling into the danger of relativism or of demonising others, we sought to embrace, fully and courageously, the goodness and mercy of God who transcends our every human reckoning and desires only that ‘all be saved’. In this way we wished to experience this Synod in the context of the Extraordinary Year of Mercy which the Church is called to celebrated.
Dear Brothers and Sisters, the Synod experience also made us better realise that the true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit; not ideas but people; not formulae but the gratuitousness of God’s love and forgiveness. This is in no way to detract from the importance of formulae – they are necessary – or from the importance of laws and divine commandments, but rather to exalt the greatness of the true God, Who does not treat us according to our merits or even according to our works but solely according to the boundless generosity of His Mercy. It does have to do with overcoming the recurring temptations of the elder brother and the jealous labourers. Indeed, it means upholding all the more the laws and commandments which were made for man and not vice versa.
In this sense, the necessary human repentance, works and efforts take on a deeper meaning, not as the price of that salvation freely won for us by Christ on the cross, but as a response to the One who loved us first and saved us at the cost of his innocent blood, while we were still sinners.
The Church’s first duty is not to hand down condemnations or anathemas, but to proclaim God’s mercy, to call to conversion, and to lead all men and women to salvation in the Lord.
Blessed Paul VI expressed this eloquently: ‘We can imagine, then, that each of our sins, our attempts to turn our back on God, kindles in Him a more intense flame of love, a desire to bring us back to Himself and to His saving plan… God, in Christ, shows Himself to be infinitely good. God is good. Not only in Himself; God is – let us say it with tears – good for us. He loves us, He seeks us out, He thinks of us, He knows us, He touches our hearts and He waits for us. He will be – so to say – delighted on the day when we return and say: ‘Lord, in your goodness, forgive me. Thus our repentance becomes God’s joy”.
St. John Paul II also stated that: ‘the Church lives an authentic life when she professes and proclaims mercy … and when she brings people close to the sources of the Saviour’s mercy, of which she is the trustee and dispenser’.
Benedict XVI, too, said: ‘Mercy is indeed the central nucleus of the Gospel message; it is the very name of God … May all that the Church says and does manifest the mercy God feels for mankind. When the Church has to recall an unrecognised truth, or a betrayed good, she always does so impelled by merciful love, so that men may have life and have it abundantly’.
In light of all this, and thanks to this time of grace which the Church has experienced in discussing the family, we feel mutually enriched. Many of us have felt the working of the Holy Spirit Who is the real protagonist and guide of the Synod. For all of us, the word ‘family’ does have the same sound as it did before the Synod, so much so that the word itself already contains the richness of the family’s vocation and the significance of the labours of the Synod.
In effect, for the Church to conclude the Synod means to return to our true ‘journeying together’ in bringing to every part of the world, to every diocese, to every community and every situation, the light of the Gospel, the embrace of the Church and the support of God’s mercy. Thank you”.
Truly, his manner of wordsmithing and speaking is akin to listening to a permanent deacon give a homily with guitar in hand. My apologies to nearly all permanent deacons.
I guess even if we say that the documents are not ex-cathedra, that still leaves the problem that Catholics had always understood the existing doctrine at the time in a different manner to that which we are called to understand it today. So I don’t think that (the idea that its not ex-cathedra) is acceptable because it suggests that the Catholic Church was incompetent for 2000 years. So who is to say the Church is any better today?
Btw, I bookmarked an article here on Papal lapses. But the article seems to be missing. Was the article removed?
Four thoughts…
1. This is excellent analysis.
2. The contrast between these two “pyradigms” could not be more stark.
3. All inverted pyramids will necessarily tip over.
4. If the pyramid of Vatican I is infallibly defined for the purpose of safeguarding faith and morals, an inversion of said pyramid – whether intended or not – will necessarily imperil faith and morals.
I get what this is saying & of course agree…but to Neo Catholics we sound hypocritical because one minute it looks like we’re say we have to always submit to the pope & he has supreme power, but then turn around saying how VII & the Pope & many below are in error & undermining doctrine so we then have to resist him & shackle him on what he can & can’t do & we pick & choose what to believe according to our criteria…As well as the quote “She is unchangeable, inalterable in the charter of her foundation which was sealed by the Blood of the Son of God; and yet she
moves, yet she clothes herself in new forms as she advances with the times,
progressing always without changing her nature….” & post-VII claims that is what they are doing & that we’re stuck in “old ways.” It’s all so confusing sometimes…
So is there an good in depth article already that explains the pope’s supreme power, yet how he can’t change solid Catholic teachings? As well as the traditions…I know fisheaters is pretty good but I would like to find more…
He ia an AntiChrist whose haughtiness is a malignancy on the Divinely-Constituted office of the Papacy. It is easy to see he considers his own self THE explicator of what it means to be Catholic despite what the more than 260 previous Popes have professed and despite the orthodox praxis of more than 2000+ years before his disastrous election.
The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has chosen to follow the Lambeth Conference in its auto destructive path that led to the moral quicksand which is aught but the anteroom of Hell.
Y’all are on your own Hierarchy. Have a nice day…
because IANS aint walking that path; because Jesus is,always has been, and always will be, the Head of His Church, IANS he will stay in full communion with the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church while refusing to accept any and all novelties as within Tradition (See St Vincent of Lerins) novelties have always savored of heresy.
The Shadow Church (it has refused its substance created by Jesus Christ) refuses to actualise its Trinitarian aspects, that of the Legislative, Juridical, and Coercetive aspects constitutive of its being, and it does no good to claim any new legislation is law at all if it conflicts with Tradition and the Faith once-delivered in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ who is King of Heaven and Earth and so no pernicious papal praxis pallium will allowed to be pulled over my eyes.
Our Pope and Our Cross does not have the humility to resign and throw-in with the Anglicans because he knows he would be laughed at if he said as an Anglican what he now says, and does, as Pope.
It is owing solely to the residual respect -rapidly evaporating – of the Papacy that the vast majority of Catholics listen to him politely and try and cover-up his spiritual/doctrinal nekkidness but this man, once a proud Knee-Jerk-Papal-Loyalist, is long done with that sad papolatry..
As fas as iANS can determine, he is not Catholic and he does not have the same Faith as does IANS and John Vennari spoke for many trads when he said he would not let him teach his kids.
Our Pope and Our Cross is the cup for IANS and IANS is in the garden of Gethsemane and IANS may not let this cup pass by; either by sprinting off into sedevacantism or entering into the putative safe haven of any schism.
All of this is God’s will – active or permissive – and IANS was meant to be alive during this most execrable epochs of ecclesiastical existence and so IANS can say that God does have an ineffable sense of humor.
…no one can be raised up high than the others… is a statement of an AntiChrist for Jesus Christ chose Peter as The Head of His Church on Earth.
A possible reaction to such a quote is, who said that, the Pope or Squeaky Fromme?
Such words are not only plainly a lie, they are embarrassing to hear from one who has ultimate authority on Earth.
The Holy Father is doing theology from below. Not from the top down.
Let’s face facts: This pope is not the most intelligent we have had in the last two centuries. Most others who occupied the office were multilingual, some like Benedict astonishingly so, but José Bergoglio must be content to depend on translators since he commands, I believe, only his native Spanish and Italian. I speak the former and can often understand a lot of the latter even though I’ve never studied it a day, so to switch from one to the other easily doesn’t mean one is Mensa material. (I know linguistic ability is merely one indication of intelligence, but we have to deal with the evidence we have at hand.) I’m left wondering why so many folks think Francis is so great. It seems to be something like the “America Has Talent” syndrome where anything beyond a squeaky voice on the part of a contestand brings the dimwitted audience to a standing ovation.