Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 11, 2025

Lex Anteinternet: Donald Trump and wolves in sheep's clothing. Attacking actual Christian beliefs and practices. The White House Faith Office and Paula Michelle White-Cain. We warned you.

Lex Anteinternet: Donald Trump and wolves in sheep's clothing. Atta...

Donald Trump and wolves in sheep's clothing. Attacking actual Christian beliefs and practices. The White House Faith Office and Paula Michelle White-Cain. We warned you.

We warned on this site that Catholics who were supporting Donald Trump as the more Christian of supposedly two options were being short sighted, particularly as there were other options that any Catholic could square with.  Part of the reason that we warned of this is that we were convinced that the "Christianity" of Donald Trump was the fringe of Evangelicalism that doesn't square with Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopal and Lutheran faiths. . . i.e. almost all of Christianity, at all.

We also warned that because of that, the entire set of events would turn on us.

Well, we were right.  We just didn't anticipate how right we'd be, and how fast it would occur.  

It started off with Trump's deportation efforts, which brought out the Catholic Bishops who really should have been out before.  Be that as it may, as soon as that occurred the Trump Interregnum hauled out Catholic convert, and adherent to a sort of Rod Dreher type of Catholicism (yes, Dreher is Orthodox) to attack the Bishops.  Vance had already morally compromised himself during the election by taking views that the Catholic Church condemns, so he was on the well trod, and ironically liberal, Catholic politician path of taking an off ramp to Hell in order to keep their political career alive.

"But for Wales?"

Anyhow, plenty of right wing Catholics who had a hefty glass of Trump Prune Juice already downed pulled up for another one and backed Vance's statements, just as plenty of English parliamentarians schismed when King Henry VIII was having dating troubles.  

Somewhat ironically, it was the church that King Henry caused to come about that next received the ire of Trump, that being the Episcopal Church when their bishop in D.C. had the guts to address Trump from the pulpit.  I don't know that Trump even noticed at the time, but plenty of Trump backers did, and Trump jointed in.  Her "liberal", or perhaps "progressive", or perhaps "woke" offense was noting the same things that Christ had in his addresses to the masses.

We all know what happened to Christ.

Well, I guess we don't all know, but more on that in a moment.

The Lutherans, being that body of Catholics originally whom German, and later Scandinavian, princes dragged out of the Catholic Church to follow Martin Luther, who originally only hoped for some reforms himself but then got carried away with himself, found themselves rejoined with Catholics in a way when Trump went after both groups for aiding immigrants without regard to their nationality.  Big branches of hit Lutheran faith have become almost more Catholic than the Catholics in some places and now have real difficulty in explaining what they believe that's different, norther than they know that they don't follow the Bishop of Rome.

Anyhow, what's going on here should be obvious.

Over half the Christians in the world are Catholic, the oldest and original branch of Christianity.  About 12%, supposedly, are Orthodox, but I'd guess that its higher than that, maybe 15% or even 20%.  The balance are Protestants.

Protestantism is dying worldwide and particularly in the west, but the "Evangelical" branch has rising enormously in the US and also around the world.  It's easy to believe in.  It doesn't ask you to confess your sins, it doesn't really grasp the concept of mortal sins, it rejects nearly everything the Church Fathers said except that Christ was divine.

It's perfectly comfortable with sexual sins, at least as the plumbing is correct.  And it really doesn't care too much if you "go to church" on Sunday, or at all for that matter.

And in the US, the real fringe of it, believes that the US is a divinely charged nation with a mission to become, basically, a new, and Evangelical Israel.

So this gives you a figure like Paula Michelle White-Cain.

Married three times, she's a proponent of the "prosperity gospel" which is the antithesis of real Christianity.  Christ promised his followers that they'd be persecuted, despised and even killed for following him.

The health and wealth people promise that believing their brand of Christianity will make you rich.

Not one of the original twelve Bishops of the Church, the Apostles, got rich.  Indeed, they were universally treated horribly.  We don't completely know all of their fates, but from tradition and what we do know, this is what occurred:

James (the Greater), the son of Zebedee, was martyred by King Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-3).

St. Peter was martyred around twenty years later in Rome, along with St. Paul.

St. James (the Lesser) was who martyred by stoning in Jerusalem in the A.D. 60s.

St. Thomas was martyred in India.

St. Bartholomew was martyred by beheading or being flayed alive.

St. Philip may have been martyred in Hierapolis, we're not sure on that one.

St. Matthew was martyred, although the manner of his death is disputed.

St. Simon (the Zealot)was martyred, with St. Jude (Thaddeus).

White, in contrast, is very much alive and apparently quite well off financially.  She's been married three times, which Apostolic Christianity would condemn, but which the American Civil Religion is okay with.  Her third husband is a member of the band Journey.

White is a practitioner of the yell reaffirming things at the congregation school of preaching.  Her followers aren't going to be hearing the "Four Things God Hates" sermon and be shifting in their seats.  Nor are they going to hear that when Christ said it was harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needles, our Savior was not being metaphorical.  

Indeed, they're going to hear that God is going to make them rich.  If they listen to White-Cain, who is living a lifestyle that might make be presenting her with needles to pass through at the end of her life, and which at least facially has her living in adultery according to Apostolic faiths, they hearing that serial polygamist and apparently wealthy man Donald Trump is "Godly".

White has drawn the ire of Protestant Christian pastor rapper Shai Linne in a song called "Fal$e Teacher$", whose lyrics are as follows:

Let me begin, while there is still ink left in my pen

I am set to contend for Truth you can bet will offend

Deception within the church man, who's letting them in?

We talked about this years ago, let's address it again (Yeh)

And I ain't really trying to start beef

But some who claim to be part of His sheep got some sharp teeth (they're wolves)

You cast at me when you criticize them

But Jesus told us: Matthew 7:16, we can recognize them!

And God forbid that for the love of some fans

I keep quiet and watch them die with their blood on my hands!

So, there's nothing left for me to do except to speak to you

In the spirit of Jude 3 and 2nd Peter 2

And I know that some would label me a Pharisee

Because today the only heresy is saying that there's heresy:

"How dare they be specific and drop some clarity

On the popularity of the gospel of Prosperity"

Turn off TBN, that channel is overrated

The pastors speak bogus statements, financially motivated

It's kind of like a pyramid scheme

Visualize Heretics Christianizing the American dream

It's foul and deceitful, they're lying to people

Teaching that camels squeeze through the eye of a needle!

Ungodly and wicked, ask yourself how can they not be convicted

Treating Jesus like a lottery ticket

And you're thinking they're not the dangerous type

Because some of their statements are right

That only proves that Satan comes as an angel of light

This teaching can't be believed without a cost

The lie is you can achieve a crown without a cross

And I hear it all the time when they speak on the block

Even unbelievers are shocked how they're fleecing the flock

It should be obvious then, yet I'll explain why it's in

Peep the Bible, it's in 1 Timothy 6:9-10

It talks about how the desire for riches

Has left many souls on fire and stitches, mired in ditches

Tell me, who would teach you to pursue as a goal

The very thing that the Bible said will ruin your soul, huh?

Yet they're encouraging the love of money

To make it worse, they've exported this garbage into other countries!

My heart breaks even now as I'm rhyming

You wanna know what all false teachers have in common? (what?)

It's called selfism the fastest growing religion

They just dress it up and call it "Christian"

Don't be deceived by this funny biz

If you come to Jesus for money, then He's not your God, money is!

Jesus is not a means to an end

The Gospel is He came to redeem us from sin

And that is the message forever I yell

If you're living your best life now you're headed for hell!

Pretty much nails it.

So, those of you who are actually Christian, this is going to get much worse.

Trump went to the National Prayer Breakfast.

I'm going to note off the top that I'm a sort of cynical person about events like the National Prayer Breakfast.  Frankly, I tend to be a bit uneasy by prayers at big events as it is, as this is a Protestant country and I'm, by nature, a very reserved and shy man.  Indeed, one of my resolutions this Lent is going to be to try to shed that in regards to public displays of religion.

That may be an odd way to start this off, but for example, almost every Catholic crosses themselves before prayer. . . unless you are here in the United States and at a the annual gathering of the Community Moose and Improvement Society in which case you might not, as you'll stand out.

You probably should.

Anyhow, the association of Donald Trump with religion in general is laughable.  He doesn't appear to have observed any notable tenant of real Christianity, in so far as I can tell, at all.  And yet here he is at the National Prayer Breakfast.  It's like having W C Fields address the Temperance Union. 

Anyhow, here's what he said.

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP

AT THE NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST

February 6, 2025

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of Communications

______________________________________________________________

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  This is very beautiful, I must say.  This is a beautiful place.  And our country is starting to do very well again.  It’s happening fast — a little faster than people thought. 

Thank you especially to Senator Marshall for the beautiful introduction.  Appreciate it very much.  Thank you.  Great senator you are. 

I also want to thank a friend and a man of profound faith and tremendous patriotism who’s also become a great friend.  You become much friendlier when you have a majority of two or three or four.  Could even be five pretty soon.  (Laughter.)  But for a little while, it was one.  That’s Mike Johnson, speaker.  Thank you very much, Mike — very much.  (Applause.)

And thanks, as well to somebody who’s doing a fantastic job: Senator Thune.  Thank you very much, Senator.  (Applause.)  It’s not easy.  It’s not easy.  It’s really great. 

And Leader Scalise — Steve, wherever you may be.  I think you’re here someplace.  There he is.  A brave guy, too.  A brave guy.  I always say it. 

And Senator Chuck Schumer.  Chuck, thank you very much.  Thank you.

Senator Hassan, thank you very much.  Thank you.  Very nice to see you. 

Congressman Jeffries, thank you.

And many other very distinguished leaders in the room.  Great, great group of people.  If we could ever come together, it would be unbelievable.  It may not happen, but it should and maybe it will. 

From the earliest days of our republic, faith in God has always been the ultimate source of the strength that beats in the hearts of our nation. 

We have to bring religion back.  We have to bring it back much stronger.  It’s one of the biggest problems that we’ve had over the last fairly long period of time.  We have to bring it back.

Thomas Jefferson himself once attended Sunday services held in the old House Chamber on the very ground where I stand today, so there could be nothing more beautiful than for us to gather in this majistic place — it is majestic — and reaffirm that America is and will always be “one nation under God.” 

At every stage of the American story, our country has drawn hope and courage and inspiration from our trust in the Almighty.  Deep in the soul of every patriot is the knowledge that God has a special plan and a glorious mission for America.  And that plan is going to happen.  It’s going to happen.  I hope it happens sooner rather than later.  It’s going to happen. 

And it’s His hand that guides us every single step of the way.  And all of you and the things we have to do is to see the defining role that faith and prayer have played in the life of our nation.  And you just have to look at this building, and you can look at each other.  You can really look at each other.  It’s defined almost everyone in this room.  I think faith has been very strong with the people in this room. 

Just steps away from here, in the Hall of Columns, is the statue of John Winthrop, who famously proclaimed that America would stand as “a city upon a hill, a light to all nations with the eyes of all people upon us.”

Today, almost 400 years after that famous sermon, we see that with the Lord’s help, the city stands taller and shines brighter than ever before — or at least it soon will. 

In that same hall, we also find the statue of the great Roger Williams, who founded the state of Rhode Island, named its capital city Providence, and built the First Baptist Church in America. 

It’s Williams that we have to thank for making religious liberty part of the bedrock of American life.  And today we must protect the fundamental freedom with absolute devotion.  We must stand strong, just like generations of Americans have done on the battlefields all around the world. 

Feet away from the magnificent rotunda, another statue watches over visitors to the Capitol.  George Washington, the founder of our country, often called for Americans to join together in prayer — very often.  And more than two centuries later, this morning, we heed President Washington’s wisdom and follow in his mighty footsteps.  He was a strong man and of great religious strength. 

The stories of legends like Washington, Winthrop, and Williams remind us that without faith in God, there would be no American story.  Every citizen should be proud of this exceptional heritage.  We have an unbelievable heritage, and we have to use that and make life better for everyone. 

That’s why, as we approach the 25th-times-10 anniversary — think of that, 250; 250 years we’ll be celebrating next year — of our country’s founding, I have signed an executive order to resume the process of creating a new national park full of statues of the greatest Americans who ever lived. 

We’re going to be honoring our heroes, honoring the greatest people from our country.  We’re not going to be tearing down.  We’re going to be building up. 

It will be called the National Garden of American Heroes.  Some of you will be on that soon-to-be hallowed ground — some of you.  Let’s see.  I can pick a few of you right now by looking — (laughter) — because there’s a couple of you right now, I can see.  Let’s see.  (Laughter.)  It’s the president’s sole opinion.  (Laughter.)  And I’ve given myself a 25-year period — (laughter) — and then somebody else.  By that time, it will be very, very built up.  (Laughter.)

No, it will be something very special, and I hope that Congress will fully fund this wonderfully unifying project at the first possible opportunity — it’s not going to be a lot of money; going to be very important, however — so that more of our people can be inspired by the faith and courage of patriots like those who we honor in these halls.  One of the incredible Americans whose memory my order will celebrate is also recognized with a statue in the Capitol, representing the great state of North Carolina, and that’s a man known — who everybody loved: Reverend Billy Graham. He was something.  My father used to take me to watch the “Crusades.”  He would take me to Yankee Stadium.  I remember it so well.  I remember it more than I remember any Yankee game, and I’ve seen a lot of Yankee games.  (Laughter.)  Can you believe it?  And Billy didn’t have a bat, so, you know, he’s pretty good.  It was amazing.  You’d have 60- or 70,000 people, and they loved him.  They loved him.    I saw him with Franklin.  I don’t know if Franklin is here.  I just don’t know, but I’ve gotten to know Franklin.  He’s done a great job with helping on tragedies, on problems like in North Carolina, California.  He’s always the first one there.  The work he does is — his father is very proud of him, I can tell you that.  But Billy Graham was very special.     One floor below us, Reverend Graham’s statue stands with an open Bible, the page turned to a letter from the apostle Paul, which reads, “Let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season, we will reap if we do not give up.”  Never give up.  Never ever give up.  You can’t.     How about me?  If I would have given up, I would not be here right now.  Who the hell knows where I’d be?  (Laughter.)  It might not be a good place.  If it was up to the Democrats, it would not be a good place at all.  (Laughter.)      Never ever give up.  There could be no better message for the leaders gathered here — and you are real leaders — that we must never give up, and we must never grow tired.  We must never grow weary, and we always must practice good.     As you know, last week, only a few miles from here, our nation witnessed a terrible tragedy when 67 people were killed in a horrible accident near Reagan Airport.  As one nation, we take solace in the knowledge that their journey that night did not end in the icy waters of the Potomac, but in the warm embrace of a very loving God.  None of us knows exactly when our time on Earth will be over.  You never know.   A truth I confronted a few short months ago when there was an incident that wasn’t — it was not fun.  It was not a good thing.  But God was watching me.  The chances of me being here — my sons are shooters.  They’re really good shooters, Don and Eric.  And they said the chances of missing from that range with that gun are — but Don equated it to a one-foot putt.  That’s pretty bad.  Two feet I can see missing.  (Laughter.)  But one foot you can’t miss.  It was the equivalent of a one-foot putt, is what he told me.    He said — in fact, he gained some religion.  He gained — he went up 25 percent.  (Laughter.)  And if you know him, that’s a lot.  (Laughter.)  But he said, “There had to be somebody that saved you, and I think I know who it is.”  And he looked up.  And I said, “Whoa, Don, that’s come — you’ve come a long way.”  (Laughter.)  He’s a good guy.     But they my two sons just really couldn’t believe it.  Had I not turned that right turn just at that time — and the audience — 55,000 people standing this way.  There were just a few people in the back on the bleachers.  There was nobody over there, except for my all-time favorite chart in history, a chart on immigration.  Immigration saved my life.  See?  So, we’re going to be good for immigration, okay? 

But had I not made that turn — boom — and quickly.  It was almost as though a deer bolted.  You know, they say the only way you miss when you’re a good shot is if it bolts?  I bolted.  I turned to the right to look at the chart, and I said, “Wow, what was that?  What was that?” So, you never know, but God did that.  I mean, it had to be.  The chances of turning, because there’s no reason to turn to the right.  You know, the chart is rarely brought down.  I brought it down maybe 20 percent and — 20 percent of the time.  And it’s never on my right.  It’s always on my left.  And it’s always at the end of the speech, never the beginning of the speech. 

And if I was a little more than that 90-degree angle, it would be no good.  And if I was a little less, it would be no good.  It had to be perfect.  The thing went “shhh” right along the edge.  It didn’t affect my hair.  Can you believe that?    (Laughter.)  It might’ve touched it.  Might have touched it, but not where it counts, not — (laughter) — not the skin part. But it changed something in me, I feel.  I feel even stronger.  I believed in God, but I feel much more strongly about it.  Something happened.  And so — (applause) — thank you.  Thank you. But that event, like the tragedy last week, should remind us all that we have to make the most out of every single day that we have.  Who would think that you’re in space and two things collide?  The odds of that happening are so small, even without proper control. 

We should have had the proper control.  We should have had better equipment.  We don’t.  We have obsolete equipment.  They were understaffed, for whatever reason.  I guess the helicopter was high, and we’ll find out exactly what happened.  But the odds, even if you had nothing — if you had nobody, the odds of that happening are extremely small. 

     It’s like, did you ever see — you go to a driving range in golf and you’re hitting balls, hundreds of balls, thousands of hours.  I never see a ball hit another ball.  Balls going up all over the place.  You never see them hit. 

 It was amazing that that could happen.  There was a lot of mistakes made, and it should have never happened.  But regardless of that, it’s amazing that it happened. 

 And I think that’s going to be used for good.  I think what is going to happen is we’re all going to sit down and do a great computerized system for our control towers, brand-new — not pieced together, obsolete, like it is — land-based — trying to hook up a land-based system to a satellite system. 

And the first thing that some experts told me when this happened is you can’t hook up land to satellites, and you can’t hook up satellites to land.  It doesn’t work.  And we spent billions and billions of dollars trying to renovate an old, broken system, instead of just saying, “Cut it loose, and let’s spend less money and build a great system.”  Done by two or three companies — very s- — good companies, specialists.  That’s all it is. They used 39 companies.  That means that 39 different hookups have to happen.  And I don’t know how many people of you are good in terms of all of the kind of things necessary for that — and it’s very complex stuff — but when you have 39 different companies working on hooking up different cities and different people — you need one company with one set of equipment. 

And there are some countries that have unbelievable air controller systems, and they would have — bells would have gone off when that helicopter literally even hit the same height, because it traveled a long distance before it hit.  It was just like — just wouldn’t stop — you follow the line.  But bells and whistles would have gone off.  They have them where it actually could virtually turn the thing around.  It would have just never happened if we had the right equipment. 

And one of the things that’s going to be — I’m going to be speaking to John and to Mike and to Chuck and to everybody.  We have to get together and just — as a single bill, just pass where we get the — the best control system.

When I land in my plane, privately, I use a system from another country, because my captain tells me — I’m landing in New York, and I’m using — I won’t tell you what country, but I use a system from another country, because the captain says, “This thing is so bad.  It’s so obsolete.”  And we can’t have that. 

So, we’re going to have the best system and it’s a lot of money, but it’s not that much money.  And it’ll happen fast, and it’ll be done by total professionals.  And when it’s done, you’re not going to have accidents.  It’s just not — they’re not — they’re virtually not possible to have. 

Each of us is blessed with a precious chance to help lead America to renew our pledges of faith and everything else and bring us to new heights and create a future of promise for our people and for ourselves. 

You know, we have the most important people in the country, in a true sense, here, because you’re the ones that are going to make the decision.  You’re the ones that are leading us into so many different things, whether it’s the right air control system or the right size military or what to do and what not to do — most important people.

And many of you are very religious.  I know so many of you are very religious.  And I just think that our country has been so badly hurt.  We’re very hurt by what COVID did to religion.  It really hurt it badly.  People couldn’t go to church for a long period of time.  Even going outside, they were given a hard time.  And I’m not blaming anybody for that, but — but it was very hard to gather. 

So, they start using computers, if that.  And when they come back, it’s just, you know, a whole new experience they have to get used to.  But it is starting to come back. 

We had a fantastic thing happen yesterday.  The Army had the best recruitment numbers that they’ve had in more than 15 years.  They think it could be 25 years, actually — they’re going to probably put that out — but more than 15 years just now.  (Applause.)

And we were worried about it.  We were talking about it numerous times that, you know, we don’t have people joining our military services.  We don’t have people joining our police force.  We have to cherish our police. 

It’s so dangerous.  You open a car and somebody starts shooting.  They have blackened windows.  You don’t even have any idea who’s in the car.  Oftentimes, they have the dark windows — which they’re not, in theory, supposed to have, but they have them.  The door opens and a gun is pointed at your face, and you can’t do a thing about it.  It’s just nothing you’re going to do about it.  Your friends will take them out, and it’s happened so many times, but you just — it’s so — such a dangerous thing.  We have to cherish these people. 

So, today, we join our hearts and prayers in recommitting to putting our country first.  We have to put our country first, making America stronger and greater and more exceptional than ever before.

And we have to make religion a much more important factor now.  We have to make it an important factor.  And if we do that, it’s going to be — our job is just going to be much easier.  It unifies people.  It brings people together.  Democrats are going to be able to have lunch again and dinner with Republicans. 

And I remember, just as — growing up, I’d see — you know, I revered senators and congressmen as something very special, but they were out to dinner all the time.  We had an old congressman, maybe some of — Sey Halpern from Queens, and he was a friend of my father.  But he’d have dinner with — he was a Democrat, but he would have dinner with Republicans, and he’d be at it.  It wouldn’t even make a difference.

Today, it’s like shocking.  And it shouldn’t be.  You have to get together.  We really have to get together. 

We all know what’s right and what’s wrong, and there’s going to be compromise on both sides, but we have to just do the right thing, and we have to get together.  

You did it with Marco Rubio.  He got everybody who was — 99 votes.  And the only vote was our VP, who — who maybe we should have been there just to make it a hundred, but I think I would have been angered if it was a hundred.  That might be a step too far, right?  (Laughter.)  But, no, it was great to see a vote. 

Pam Bondi had support from Democrats, and some of the others had some pretty good support.  So, you know, it’s doable.

We had a recent bill having to do with a very beautiful young lady who was killed from Georgia, and that bill was very bipartisan.  It was a very beautiful thing to watch, actually.  And so, I think we just have to — if possible, we have to unify.

There’s big division.  I mean, some people want an open border and some people want a closed border.  We want it closed, and they want it open.  Now, that’s a big difference.  How do you solve that problem?  It’s a big difference. 

Some people want men in women’s sports and some people don’t.  And I was with somebody yesterday who was so upset that the bill was signed, where men cannot participate in women’s sports.  And I said — he’s a very smart guy --went to a great school, was a great student.  And he actually feels, you know, that that should happen: Men should be able to play — meaning transition into women sports.

And you talk to him, and it’s just — you know, I don’t understand it. I think it — I don’t understand how the problem ever got started in the first place.  It just seems so simple.

But he’s a good person and just believes it.  He just believes it.  Not going to be easy to convince him otherwise. 

So, where is a middle ground?  It’s just hard to have a middle ground if there’s two ways.  I mean, you can either do it or you can’t. 

But I think a lot of good things are going to happen.  You know, a lot of people might be surprised to hear me say that, of all people, but I think a lot of good things are going to happen.  Because our country has got some big headaches, but we have tremendous spirit right now. 

The spirit is as high as it’s been.  It was up 49 points this morning — 49 points.  That’s the biggest increase in the history of whatever the poll was. 

So, the spirit is there.  That’s a big factor.  That’s probably the hardest thing to get back, to be honest.  The rest is easy.  The rest is easy. 

So, I want to just thank you all.  I want to congratulate a lot of the new members.  I see so many of you that ran great races.  David, that was a great race.  But so many that ran great races.  And on both sides, you ran some incredible races.  So, it’s good to be with you. 

And God bless everybody.  We want to come together.  And the happiest — the person, the element, the everything that’s going to be happy.  People of religion are going to be happy again. 

And I really believe you can’t be happy without religion, without that belief.  I really believe it.  I just don’t see how you can be.  (Applause.)

So, let’s bring religion back.  Let’s bring God back into our lives. 

Thank you all very much.  Thank you very much.  Great honor.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

Some Catholic traditionalist have been warning for years now that we (Catholics) are on the verge of being persecuted in ways we have not been for a couple of centuries.  A couple of centuries seems like a long time to most people, but it really isn't.  Anyhow, they warned, we are going to find ourselves being in the same position as Catholics in Protestant England were, or perhaps like Catholics in early Rome.

It all seemed rather extreme.

Well, prosecution is coming.  And not from secular "woke" America like they/we feared, but rather from the hardcore Protestant Evangelical right that never believed we were Christians anyway, because they're ignorant of history in general and the history of Christianity in particular.  

This time, somewhat ironically, we're going to be joined by those branches of Christianity from which we're barely separated.  Anglicans and Lutherans have mostly gotten over their beef with us, even if they have not reunited with us, and now they're going to share the hatred that we've received pretty much from day one.

But the branch of Christianity that is going to suffer the most, long term, are the Evangelicals.  No whopping set of absurdities can be maintained forever, and fairly soon the Protestant going to church once or twice per year and otherwise watch football while shacked up Christians are going to turn on them, when things turn bad on them.  Actual devout Evangelicals of other branches are going to get hit as well.  We're going to see a drop off in Evangelical community at a huge rate.

One of the answers to the mystery of evil is that God never permits an evil that he can't bring a good out of.  I can't see the future, nor can you, but we can often discern patterns and make predictions, many of which, indeed most of which, will be wrong (although I was right here).  One thing that seems clear is that the Reformation has been passing away in front of us.  It's too hard for people to accept it anymore if they know anything.  It made more sense, in the US, when a backwoods preacher lived in the backwoods with backwoods people.  A lot of Evangelical Protestantism is still that way in the US, localized either in communities or demographics.  But the knowledge isn't.  The bulwark of the Christian defense against false modern beliefs has been the Catholic Church, which is joined with the Orthodox and conservative Anglicans and Lutherans in that.  But it's also the bulwark against the American Civil Religion.  The European Protestant Reformation is already dead.  This may be the last stage of the end of the Reformation playing out in front of us.

But it won't be fun to watch at all or enjoyable to suffer in.

Having said that, Catholicism has always done well as an oppressed faith.  We might finally be waking up from the slumber that John F. Kennedy induced us into.

Sunday, April 7, 2024

Lex Anteinternet: Resurrection Sunday?

Lex Anteinternet: Resurrection Sunday?

Resurrection Sunday?

Before this past weekend, I'd never heard Easter called Resurrection Sunday.  I heard it twice on the weekend shows, once from a conservative Republican in Congress, and once from a centerist Democrat in Congress.  The latter, an African American Congressman from South Carolina, said off hand "we're supposed to call it Resurrection Sunday now".

I don't like it.

Apparently, what this relatively newly coined word is, is part of a widely held angst that everything on the liturgical calendar might have some pagan origin.  This is silly.

The classic one is that Christmas falls on top of a Roman holiday, which is particularly odd given that the Roman holiday so noted first came into existence after the first Christian texts noting the celebration of Christ's Mass in December.  The deal with Easter, apparently, is a fear that it is tied to the northern European goddess Eostre, who was the goddess of fertility and the goddess of the dawn.  People like to say that this is "German", but in actuality it would be Norse, with the Anglo-Saxons having close connections with the Scandinavians even before they became illegal immigrants on Great Britain.  The Venerable Bede made that claim, and he lived from 672 to 735, so in relative terms he was sort of close, but not all that close, to when the Angles, Saxons and Jutes had first shown up.

Bede further claimed that British Christians, using the Saxon calendar, starting calling Easter by that name as it occured in Eosturmonath (April) or Eastermonað.  If so, it also helps explain Easter eggs and the Easter Bunny, although it wouldn't explain why a bunny would leave boiled eggs all over, or why Easter Eggs are so famously associated with the East, as in Ukraine and Russia, either.

That the egg custom is really old and seems to ahve been adopted from a Persian Nowruz tradition actually would serve to explain the eggs. . . The tradition was old by the time it showed up on Great Britain.

The Easter Bunny is more obscure.  Rabbits had no association with Eostre, however.  About all we really know about the Easter Bunny is that it was a German Lutheran custom, and originally it played the role of a judge, evaluating whether children were good or disobedient in behavior at the start of the season of Eastertide, making the rabbit sort of scary.

Back on topic, and be all that as it may, some believe that the word Easter comes from an old Germanic, in this in context it would be Low German, probably Saxon, word for "east" which also, if fully extended to "Easter" grammatically meant to turn to the east. When the etymology is really examined, this is in fact the most likely explanation.  Some who have looked at it go further and claim that the word came from a Latin loan word (of which there are a surprising number in German), that being Auster, which sounds a lot like Easter, but actually had sort of a complicated meaning, the most simple being south, but the word apparently having other more complicated implications associated with the dawn.  However, some would say, including me, that instead Auster and East have the same Indo-European root word, that being  *h₂ews-, which means ‘dawn’, with the sun rising, of course, in the East. Those people claim the Germanic East is a variant of the root *h₂ews-ro-, whereas Auster is the Italic reflex, from *h₂ews-teros.  And it goes from there.

The latter sounds complicated, but this too is more common than we imagine.  Certain elemental Indo-European words have ended up in all the Indo-European languages, twisted and turned over the millennia, which all make sense if their roots are explained, but which don't seem to when you first hear them.  Indeed, there's the added odd widely observed phenomenon that certain words in other languages that depart widely from your native language, almost instantly make sense when you hear them, an example being Fenster, the German world for "window", which is fenestra in Latin and fenêtre in French.  Just my hypothesis on the latter, but it's like because of some deep Indo-European root that we otherwise understand.

Anyhow, for what it is worth, as Americans tend to believe that things are uniquely centered around us, the German word for Easter is Ostern.  I note this as I've seen repeated suggestions that only in English is the word "Easter" used.  This isn't true.  Ostern, which has the distinct "Ost", or "East" in it, is pretty close, suggesting that the directional origin of the name is correct.  I.e., in German Ostern derives from the Ost, the German word for East.

Likewise, the Dutch, who speak a closely related Germanic language, call the day Ooster.  The Dutch word for East is Oosten.  So here too, the Dutch word for Easter derives from the Dutch word for East.

Applying Occam's Razor, and keeping in mind that English is a Germanic language related to German and Dutch (Dutch more closely), leads us to the conclusion that the word "Easter" derives from the cardinal direction East, particularly when the cousin Germanic languages of German and Dutch are considered, which they usually are not.  Once that is done, and it is realized that at about the time the word Easter was first used all the northern German languages were much closer to each other than they are now, and they are still pretty close, logic pretty much dictates this result.

Most language groups do not, however, call Easter that.  The word seems to behave the way German words did and do, and has "East" as its major component, hence "East"er, "Ost"ern and Ooster.

The Scandinavian goddess explanation is considerably more complicated in every fashion.

Most non-Germanic language speakers, and some Germanic language speakers, don't use a word anything like this, of course.  

Latin and Greek, with together with Araamic, would have had the first word for the Holy Day, and they have always called Easter Pascha (Greek: Πάσχα). That is derived from Aramaic פסחא (Paskha), cognate to the Hebrew פֶּסַח‎ (Pesach), which is related to the Jewish Passover, all of which makes both linguistic, historic, and religious sense, although in the latter case one that causes some irony as we'll explain below.  Pascha actually shows up in English in at least Catholic circles, as the term Paschal is given frequent reference in relation to the Last Supper, but also beyond that in relation to Easter.

Of interest, the Swedish word for Easter is Påsk, the Norwegian Påske, the Danish Påske and the Icelandic Páskar.  If the word derived from a Scandinavian goddess, we'd expect the same pattern to hold in Scandinavia, which was the origin point of Eostre, although that would not obviously be true.  Instead, in all of Scandinavia, the word derives from Pascha.

The Frisian word for Easter is Peaske, which is particularly interesting as Frisian is extremely closely related to English and some people will claim, inaccurately, that it's mutually intelligible.  Peaske is obviously from Pascha, but it's almost morphed into Easter, which could cause some rational explanation if Easter is just a badly mispronounced Peaske. Wild morphing of words can occur, as for example the Irish Gaelic word for Easter derives from Pascha, but is Cháisc, which wouldn't be an obvious guess.

Given the German and Dutch examples, however, the Frisian word almost certainly doesn't suggest that Easter came from Pascha.

The use of Pascha makes sense, as every place in Western Europe was Christianized by the Latin Rite of the Church, which would have used a Latin term for the Holy Day.  The difference is, however, they weren't all Christianized at the same time.  The Anglo-Saxons encountered Christianity as soon as they hit the British shores in the 400s, probably around 449. At that time, most of the residents of the island were British or Roman Christians, and they would have sued the Latin term.  Conversion of the invaders is, however, generally dated to the 600s.

The Scandinavians were however much later.  Christianity appeared in Scandinavia in the 8th Century, but it really began to make major inroads in the 10th and 11th Centuries.  When the Church sent missionaries to the Saxons, it remained a much wilder place than it was to be later.  Scandinavia was very wild as well, in the 10th and 11th Centuries, but Scandinavian roaming was bringing into massive contact with the entire Eastern and Wester worlds in a way that sort of recalls the modern impact of the Internet.  They changed quickly, but they were, ironically, more globalist and modern than the Saxons had been a couple of centuries earlier. They also became quite devout, contrary to what Belloc might imagine, and were serious parts of the Catholic World until the betrayal of Gustav Vasa.

But here's the added thing. What if, in spite of the lack of evidence, the day's name in English recalls Eostre or Eosturmonath (Eastermonað"? So what?

Well, so what indeed.  It really doesn't matter.

Early Greek and Aramaic speaking Christians took their term for the day from Passover, or rather פֶּסַח‎ (Pesach).  So they were borrowing a Jewish holiday for the name right from the onset.  Nobody seems to find this shocking or complain about it.  As far as I know, Jews don't complain about it.  It simply makes sense.

And borrowing holidays that preexist and even simply using the dates is smart.  The date of Easter doesn't fit this description at all, but if the word does, borrowing it would have been convenient if a holiday existed that was celebrating rebirth.  Explaining concepts through the use of the familiar is a smart thing to do, and indeed in the US this has been done with a civil holiday, Cinco de Mayo, which Americans inaccurately believe is a Mexican holiday celebrating Mexican independence, and which have made the We Like Mexico holiday.

So, if Eostre had a day, or if the day in Saxon was named after the month named after her, it really doesn't matter.

Indeed, on that latter note, we've kept the Norse goddess Frig in Friday, the Norse God Thor, in Thursday, and the Norse God Woden in Wednesday., in English, and we don't freak out about it. Sunday originally honored the Sun, and we don't find Evangelical's refusing to use the word Sunday, as it's also the Christian Sabbath

So what of Resurrection Sunday?

I'm blaming Oliver Cromwell, fun sucker.

Great Britain's experience in the Reformation was nearly unique, in some ways.  Really radical Protestant movements, such as the Calvinists, took root in some places on the European continent, but by and large they waned, leaving isolated, for the most parts, pockets in areas in which they were otherwise a minority.  Looked at from a distance, the initial round of Protestant "reformers" didn't seek to reform all that much.  Luther continued to have a devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and Lutheran services today look pretty Catholic.  

In England, however, official religions whipped back and forth.  King Henry VIII didn't want a massive reform of theology, he wanted to instead control the Church, but things got rapidly out of hand.  After him, the Church of England struggled between being very Catholic in outlook and being a "reformed" church.  

Cromwell came up as a childhood beneficiary of the theft of Church property in the form of the dissolution and appropriation of the monasteries.  He evolved into being a radical sola scriptura Calvinist and saw the suppression of the Catholic and Anglican Churches come about.  Under his rule, religious holidays were made illegal under the theological error of sola scriptura.  After his death, the English Restoration brought a lot back, but it was never able to fully bring back in Calvinist who had adopted a rather narrow provincial English, or Scottish, view of their Christian faith, filtered through the language that they spoke.  They heavily influenced Christianity in the Americas, and their influence continues to carry on, which explains how they can adopt a view that ignores the other Germanic languages and which, in seeking to give a new term to Easter, ignores the fact that the logical choice would be the Aramaic word פסחא (Paskha) which would appear in the Bible as it would have applied to Passover, or the Greek word Πάσχα, Páscha, which means Easter and Passover.  So modern Evangelicals have inherited the Puritan narrow focus, ignored the other Germanic language words, and ignore the original Greek and Aramaic ones, in order to come up with a new one with no history of use whatsoever.

Let's just stick with Easter.

Monday, March 25, 2024

Lex Anteinternet: Holy Week.

Lex Anteinternet: Holy Week.:  

Holy Week.

 This is Holy Week.  It commenced yesterday with Palm Sunday, which we noted  yesterday:

Palm Sunday

 

Zdzisław Jasiński Palm Sunday 1891.

From City Father:

Palm Sunday

In those countries which were spared the cultural impact of the Reformation, at least directly, at the entire week is one of celebration and observance.  In a lot of those places, people have the whole week off.  Some of Spanish and Central American friends, for example do.

Well, in the English-speaking world we've had to continue to endure the impact of Cromwell and all his fun sucking, so we'll be headed to work instead.

Thursday, October 5, 2023

Lex Anteinternet: Really Missing The Point

Lex Anteinternet: Really Missing The Point

Really Missing The Point

Annaba, Algeria, late 19th Century.  Why?  Well, read below.
We must be clear that the modernization of the Church on the great anthropological questions comes through Europe. In the West, there is greater sensitivity towards certain issues such as gender or homosexuality than in Asia or Africa. Although in Europe and the United States the Church is in decline, paradoxically the young Churches that are growing in Asia or Africa are the most conservative. Western societies are moving towards a new idea of mankind, and that game is undoubtedly being played in Europe, which is why there are so many European cardinals in this consistory

Piero Schiavazzi, professor of Vatican Geopolitics at Link University in Rome.

Wow, talk about missing the point.

I don't know why the Pope picks the Cardinals that he does, but if this is the reason, it shows a real misappreciation of the evidence.

The church is on the rise in Asia and Africa, where the parishioners are conservative.

It's in decline in Europe, although that decline tends to be misunderstood and to some degree exaggerated, where contemplating "anthropological questions" is the rage.  It really isn't in decline in the US in the way that's asserted, as overall numbers remain steady, but partially due to immigration.  And not noted by Signore Schiavazzi, conservatism is on the rise in younger American Catholics.

Indeed, also in the West, a recent survey showed that amongst Australian Catholic women, younger women were noticeably more conservative than older ones. 

So appoint European Cardinals who are sensitive to the issues where the Church is failing?

Eh?

The old maxim is that nothing succeeds like success, to which we must presume that nothing fails like failure.

All over the globe, and not just in religion, the older generations that advanced the liberalism of the 70s, 80s, and 90s continue to remain in power in significant ways and don't seem to grasp that the failed legacy of that is not something that younger generations, heavily impacted by it, wish to advance further.

The impact of Cardinal appointments is much like that of Supreme Court Justices.  It's difficult to tell what they'll really do and even more difficult to tell what a Pope will do at first.  But if Signore Schiavazzi is correct, this is a bad sign.  Once again, the Papacy will not make major doctrinal changes, because it cannot, but there have been historic periods of Church failure (some involving laxity) that resulted in large departures from the Church.  History, we're told, doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.  A sort of small Counter Reformation of sorts is going on amongst the young, while at higher levels the necessity for that seems to be not only not appreciated, but perhaps not even grasped.

Also not grasped, seemingly, anywhere in the West is that the colonial era is over.  We apparently have never understood that wind the "winds of change" swept colonial powers out of Africa and Asia, it also swept the cultural balance of the world.

Europe's impact on the world was enormous culturally.  Indeed, it triumphed. But that culture was a Christian one, no matter how poorly grasped that was and no matter how poorly expressed.  Much of what we take for granted, indeed liberalism itself, about "modern culture" is Christian, and pretty much exclusively Christian, in origin.  It's no accident that cultural decay has set in, in the West, as the Christian roots have is culture have been strained by a long competing culture, that of consumerism, of which both advanced consumer society and socialism are expressions.

St. Augustine.  He was a Berber.

But Christianity itself, at least Apostolic Christianity in the form of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, has never been a European thing.  Indeed, the fundamental event of European culture was the spread of (Apostolic/Catholic) Christianity within it, which forever changed it. But Christianity didn't come out of Europe, and indeed it took the rise of Islam to cause there to be a temporary hiatus in it having a major African expression.  St. Augustine of Hippo was a Berber, not a European, and the Bishop of Hippo Regius, which is modern Annaba, Algeria.

Of course, all of the Apostles were Jews from the Middle East. The first Pope, Peter, was from modern Israel. St. Paul, who dealt with what Signore Schiavazzi calls a "new idea of mankind", as there are no new ideas really, and dismissed the conduct that we now are re contemplating as, well whatever we're re contemplating, was from Tarsus, in what is modern Turkey and which was then part of the Greco Roman world. Pope Victor I, who died in 199, was a Berber. Pope Miltiades was also a North African, as was Pope Gelasius (who was for strict Catholic orthodoxy). Pope Saint Anicetus was a Syrian as was Pope Sisinnius, Pope Constantine, and Pope Gregory III.

What ended the strong influence of North Africa, of course, was the Islamic conquest of the region, although remnant North African Catholic churches held on until the early 1400s.  Even as Christianity has spread around the world, and conquered almost all of non Arab and non Berber Africa, it's been easy to forge that its not a Eurpean religion.

That mistaken impression is about to end, and it can't end soon enough.  Trying to somehow assume that decaying European culture needs to be accommodated, if that's occurring, is a mistake.  It needs to be reformed, and it will be, and a rising Africa and Asia will be part of that.

Wednesday, October 4, 2023

The Third Phase of the Synod on Synodality

October 4, 2023

The Third Phase of the Synod on Synodality begins today.

The first phase was to gather information at the pew level.  Only something like 3% of Catholics responded to that.  That information was to be taken in, refined, and developed in diocesan, national, and continental stages. 

Those have all occured.

The third phase is split into two parts, the first part starting today, October 4, 2023, at the Vatican.  It will run until October 29.  The second part will be in October 2024. The third phase is to advise the Pope on the topic “For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission.”

The first part, of the third phase, has the objective to design a plan of study in a “synodal style” and to indicate who will be involved in those discussions.

An Instrumentum Laboris has been issued for this part. Such documents are not unique to this, but are generally issued for synods.  It is available online.  I thought about trying to post it here, but it's just too big to do so.  However, it's not too big to scan through.

I have done so, and I'll frankly say I’m not impressed.  It does recall, however, in a way one of the results of Vatican II which was to attempt to bring the laity more into the Mass, which did in fact follow Vatican II.  I've heard this called an attempt to carry out that aspect of Vatican II.  Having said that, I think something that's missed is that the overwhelming majority of laity of the largest Christian religion in the world spends most of their days trying to get through the day, rather than planning on answering surveys and the like.  Indeed, as earlier noted, people who have time to do that may not always be the people who are really the most likely to represent the real views and concerns of the laity.

None of this is, I'd note, the attitude that I should have.  At age 60, however, I'm jaded on big meetings that require volunteer participation of this type, or for which the participants are selected.  Fr. James Martin, S.J. has been selected as a member and I'd definitely not include him.

Martin is one of only 24 Americans selected for this group.  Our former Bishop Etienne is one who was selected and I would choose him.  University of Wyoming student music student Wyatt Olivas is one chosen, and I don't know anything about him other than he's presented as a youthful Hispanic.  I can't judge him, but does he represent the youthful Hispanics in our local parish who are actually from Mexico?  Based on photographs of him sitting in shorts in the mountains with a pride wrist band, probably not.

What about the youthful trads and rad trads I see at Mass on Sunday morning, such as the young woman, in her early 20s, who always wears a veil?

Catholics should pray for the success of the synod.  But we should also recall that success is not under our own terms.  I'd regard (and I'm certain not claiming that everyone should also hold this view) that if the synod just basically went away, that this was a success.  A synod that doesn't leave murky "this, but that" results damaging orthodoxy would also be a success in my view.  A synod in which the Eastern Rite, of which I'm not a part, took a large, even a lion's share, would be a success in my view.

May God grant the Synod a success on God's terms.

Prior Threads:






Tuesday, October 3, 2023

Squaring off. Five Cardinals, the Pope, and the Synod on Synodality.

Synod on Synodality retreat looks to ‘transcend all our disagreements

So read a headline from the Catholic News Agency, regarding a pre Synod retreat.

That might be the intent, but right now, the Synod is amplifying them and leading a lot of traditional, conservative and I dare say run-of-the-mill Catholics to really suffer anxiety from what's occurring while their view of Pope Francis declines.

I'm in that camp.

I don't worry that the Pope is going to change doctrine, or that the Synod will, but I do worry that the result of this will be an effort to water it down by doing end runs around its application, thereby creating confusion.  That's already occurring, which is evident by Catholics who have determined that dedicated personal attractions to sin are not sinful, and that the Pope is set to take the torch to St. Paul and ratify their non-sinful status.1   This in turn is likely to result in massive dissention within the Church, resisting the days of the Arian heresy and events of such nature.  Francis is not likely to go down, long term, as a Pope who is fondly remembered by future orthodox Catholics.  He's a strain on them now.

This week this came to a head with the publication of Dubia by its authors and a direct letter by those authors to the faithful. Cardinals Walter Cardinal Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez, Robert Cardinal Sarah and Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun have written to the faithful regarding their correspondence with the Pope. The letter comes in the form, essentially, of both notifying the faithful of what was said, but also in the form of a sort of warning that in their view the Pope's action stand to create confusion.

It was a bold thing to do.

Let's take a look at the correspondence.  First, their letter of October 2, 2023.

Notification to Christ’s Faithful (can. 212 § 3)

Regarding Dubia Submitted to Pope Francis

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church” (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals “to assist the Roman Pontiff … individually … especially in the daily care of the universal Church” (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff. By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of dubia [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his responsa [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five dubia to Pope Francis, a copy of which is attached. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.

Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of responsa ad dubia [responses to questions], we reformulated the dubia to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated dubia, a copy of which is attached, to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated dubia.

Given the gravity of the matter of the dubia, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully.

                                   Yours in Christ,

           Walter Cardinal Brandmüller

           Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

           Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez

           Robert Cardinal Sarah

           Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun

Rome, 2 October 2023

 The Dubia to which this refers, followed by the Pope's reply, is set out below.:

DUBIA

(Submitted July 10, 2023)

1 Dubium about the claim that we should reinterpret Divine Revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.

After the statements of some Bishops, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, it is asked whether in the Church Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted, according to the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, that to God who reveals is due “the obedience of faith”(Dei Verbum 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all must remain “in their entirety, throughout the ages” and alive, and be “transmitted to all generations” (7); and that the progress of understanding does not imply any change in the truth of things and words, because faith has been “handed on … once and for all” (8), and the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but teaches only what has been handed on (10).

2 Dubium about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).

According to Divine Revelation, confirmed in Sacred Scripture, which the Church “at the divine command with the help of the Holy Spirit, … listens to devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully ” (Dei Verbum 10): “In the beginning” God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful (cf. Gen. 1, 27-28), whereby the Apostle Paul teaches that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1, 24-32). It is asked: Can the Church derogate from this “principle,” considering it, contrary to what Veritatis Splendor 103 taught, as a mere ideal, and accepting as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?

3 Dubium about the assertion that synodality is a “constitutive element of the Church” (Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio 6), so that the Church would, by its very nature, be synodal.

Given that the Synod of Bishops does not represent the College of Bishops but is merely a consultative organ of the Pope, since the Bishops, as witnesses of the faith, cannot delegate their confession of the truth, it is asked whether synodality can be the supreme regulative criterion of the permanent government of the Church without distorting her constitutive order willed by her Founder, whereby the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope by virtue of his office and by the College of Bishops together with its head the Roman Pontiff (Lumen Gentium 22). 

4 Dubium about pastors’ and theologians’ support for the theory that “the theology of the Church has changed” and therefore that priestly ordination can be conferred on women.

After the statements of some prelates, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, according to which, with Vatican II, the theology of the Church and the meaning of the Mass has changed, it is asked whether the dictum of the Second Vatican Council is still valid, that “[the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood] differ essentially and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium 10) and that presbyters by virtue of the “sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice and forgiving sins” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 2), act in the name and in the person of Christ the Mediator, through Whom the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect. It is furthermore asked whether the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which teaches as a truth to be definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid, so that this teaching is no longer subject to change nor to the free discussion of pastors or theologians.

5 Dubium about the statement “forgiveness is a human right” and the Holy Father’s insistence on the duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.

It is asked whether the teaching of the Council of Trent, according to which the contrition of the penitent, which consists in detesting the sin committed with the intention of sinning no more (Session XIV, Chapter IV: DH 1676), is necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, is still in force, so that the priest must postpone absolution when it is clear that this condition is not fulfilled.

Vatican City, 10 July 2023

Walter Card. Brandmüller

Raymond Leo Card. Burke

Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez

Robert Card. Sarah

Joseph Card. Zen Ze-Kiun, S.D.B.

The Reply:

Dear Brothers,

While I do not always find it prudent to answer questions addressed directly to me, and it would be impossible to answer them all, in this case I thought it appropriate to do so because of the proximity of the Synod.

Question 1

a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word “reinterpret”. If it is understood as “to interpret better” the expression is valid. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council affirms that it is necessary that with the work of exegetes – I would add of theologians – the Church’s judgment should mature” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 12).

b) Therefore, while it is true that divine Revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding.

c) Consequently, she also matures in her understanding of what she herself has affirmed in her Magisterium.

d) Cultural changes and the new challenges of history do not modify Revelation, but they can stimulate us to make more explicit some aspects of its overflowing richness, which always offers more.

e) It is inevitable that this can lead to a better expression of some past statements of the Magisterium, and in fact this has been the case throughout history.

f) On the other hand, it is true that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of Scripture and the testimonies of Tradition need an interpretation that makes it possible to distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning. It is evident, for example, in the biblical texts (such as Ex 21:20-21) and in certain magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Dum Diversas, 1452). This is not a minor issue given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts are in need of interpretation. The same is true for some New Testament considerations on women (1 Cor 11:3-10; 1 Tim 2:11-14) and for other texts of Scripture and testimonies of Tradition that today cannot be materially repeated.

g) It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what has been revealed “for the salvation of all” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 7). For this reason the Church must constantly discern between what is essential for salvation and what is secondary or less directly connected with this goal. In this regard, I would like to recall what St. Thomas Aquinas said:

“the more one descends to 10 particulars, the more indeterminacy increases” (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94, art. 4).

h) Finally, a single formulation of a truth can never be adequately understood if it is presented in isolation, isolated from the rich and harmonious context of the whole of Revelation. The “hierarchy of truths” also implies situating each of them in adequate connection with the more central truths and with the totality of the Church’s teaching. This can finally give rise to different ways of expounding the same doctrine, even though “to those who are satisfied with a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuance, this may seem an imperfect dispersion.

But the reality is that this variety helps to better manifest and develop the various aspects of the inexhaustible richness of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium, 49). Each theological line has its risks but also its opportunities.

Question 2

a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. Only this union is called “marriage”. Other forms of union are realized only “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris laetitia 292), which is why they cannot strictly be called “marriage”.2 

b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal”.

c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

d) In dealing with people, however, pastoral charity, which must permeate all our decisions and attitudes, must not be lost. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.3 

e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. Because when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to Live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to Live better.

f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from the objective point of view are not morally acceptable, pastoral charity itself requires us not to treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

g) Decisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and in an official way enable procedures or rites for all kinds of matters, since everything “that which is part of a practical discernment in a particular situation cannot be elevated to the category of a norm”, because this “would give rise to an unbearable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia 304). Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the Episcopal Conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to the normative ones.

Question 3

a) Although you recognize that the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised either by the Pope because of his office or by the college of bishops together with its head, the Roman Pontiff (cf. Conc. Ecumen. Vat. II, Const. dogm. Lumen gentium, 22), nevertheless with these dubia you yourselves manifest your need to participate, to give your opinion freely and to collaborate, and thus you are claiming some form of “synodality” in the exercise of my ministry.

b) The Church is “mystery of missionary communion”, but this communion is not only affective or ethereal, but necessarily implies real participation: that not only the hierarchy but all the People of God in different ways and at different levels can make their voices heard and feel part of the Church’s journey.

In this sense we can say that synodality, as a style and dynamism, is an essential dimension of the life of the Church. On this point St. John Paul II has said very beautiful things in Novo Millennio Ineunte.

c) It is quite another thing to sacralize or impose a particular synodal methodology that pleases one group, to make it the norm and obligatory channel for all, because this would only lead to “freezing” the synodal journey, ignoring the diverse characteristics of the different particular Churches and the varied richness of the universal Church.

Question 4

a) “The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 10). It is not convenient to maintain a difference of degree that implies considering the common priesthood of the faithful as something of “second category” or of lesser value (“a lower degree”). Both forms of priesthood enlighten and sustain each other.

b) When St. John Paul II taught that the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women must be affirmed “definitively,” he was in no way disparaging women and giving supreme power to men. St. John Paul II also affirmed other things. For example, that when we speak of priestly power “we are in the realm of function, not dignity or holiness” (St. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 51). These are words that we have not sufficiently embraced. He also clearly maintained that while the priest alone presides at the Eucharist, the tasks “do not give rise to superiority of one over the other” (St. John Paul II, Christifideles laici, note 190; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration inter /risi9n/ores, VI). He also affirmed that if the priestly function is “hierarchical,” it should not be understood as a form of domination, but “is totally ordered to the holiness of the members of Christ” (St. John Paul II, Mulieris dignitatem, 27). If this is not understood and the practical consequences of these distinctions are not drawn, it will be difficult to accept that the priesthood is reserved only to men and we will not be able to recognize the rights of women or the need for them to participate, in various ways, in the leadership of the Church.

c) On the other hand, to be rigorous, let us recognize that a clear and authoritative doctrine about the exact nature of a “definitive statement” has not yet been exhaustively developed. It is not a dogmatic definition, and yet it must be adhered to by all. No one can publicly contradict it and yet it can be the subject of study, as is the case with the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.

Question 5

a) Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution, and implies the intention not to sin. But there is no mathematics here and once again I must remind you that the confessional is not a customs house. We are not owners, but humble stewards of the Sacraments that nourish the faithful, because these gifts of the Lord, more than relics to be guarded, are aids of the Holy Spirit for people’s lives.

b) There are many ways of expressing repentance. Often, in people who have a very wounded self-esteem, to plead guilty is a cruel torture, but the mere fact of approaching confession is a symbolic expression of repentance and of seeking divine help.

c) I would also like to recall that “sometimes it is very difficult for us to make room in pastoral ministry for the unconditional love of God” (Amoris laetitia 311), but we must learn to do so. Following St. John Paul II, I maintain that we should not demand from the faithful too precise and sure resolutions of amendment, which in the end can end up being abstract or even egotistical, but that even the foreseeability of a new fall “does not prejudge the authenticity of the resolution” (St. John Paul II, Letter to Card. William W. Baum and the participants of the annual course of the Apostolic Penitentiary, March 22, 1996, 5).

d) Finally, it should be clear that all the conditions that are usually placed on confession are generally not applicable when the person is in a situation of agony, or with very limited mental and psychic capacities.

This seems a full reply to me, but not a comforting one.  The Pope is bad about "the other hand" formulation on very serious matters, which interjects doubt by is very nature.  If things are muddled, and we know the rule, but "on the other hand", we invite first individual clerics and then individual laymen to assume that they fit into the "the other hand" and are exempt from the moral rule.

The Pope here, I suspect, is showing the sort of flexibility that is common, on an informal basis, in some parts of the world, but which will be poorly situated to apply here.  For example, it was common in some parts of the world for couples that intended to marry to basically contract a marriage independently and then wait for a traveling priest to later bless the union.  That certainly would not be tolerated as valid in North America, but it was in Central and South America at one time, for practical reasons.  At least in the 1970s (I don't know about now) books that instructed confessors on certain sins took a relaxed view based upon circumstances of a similar nature that I'm not going to get into, and this continues to be the case in other areas that are related.

Confusion over transubstantiation in at least Germany have lead to a practice in which in some areas Lutherans who are part of a marriage with a Catholic are allowed to receive Communion on the basis that they're beliefs, in some instances, are so close that it would be almost impossible for them to grasp that there is a difference.

I suspect that this is the area that Pope Francis is suggesting be explored.  Indeed, none other than the very orthodox Fr. Hugh Barbour has ventured the opinion that female same gender households that do not incorporate the element of sex may be fairly natural and not to be condemned, with the sexual element forced upon such individuals by the modern world.  Pope Francis may have something very similar to this in mind.

The problem, however, is that the Church never endorsed any of these things in a formal fashion. Recognizing mental state of mind for purposes of Confession, or for other purposes, is one thing.  Benedictions are another. 

Whether a person accepts Pope Francis' reply as correct, in part or in whole, is, of course, another matter from replying.  He did reply.  Frankly, given this reply, the Cardinal correspondents would have real reason to be concerned about the direction the Pope seems headed in, as do I.  Hence, they sent out a followup "Dubia", which is below:

REFORMULATED DUBIA

(Submitted August 21, 2023)

To His Holiness

FRANCIS

Supreme Pontiff

Most Holy Father,

We are very grateful for the answers which You have kindly wished to offer us. We would first like to clarify that, if we have asked You these questions, it is not out of fear of dialogue with the people of our time, nor of the questions they could ask us about the Gospel of Christ. In fact, we, like Your Holiness, are convinced that the Gospel brings fullness to human life and responds to our every question. The concern that moves us is another: we are concerned to see that there are pastors who doubt the ability of the Gospel to transform the hearts of men and end up proposing to them no longer sound doctrine but “teachings according to their own likings” (cf. 2 Tim 4, 3).  We are also concerned that it be understood that God’s mercy does not consist in covering our sins, but is much greater, in that it enables us to respond to His love by keeping His commandments, that is, to convert and believe in the Gospel (cf. Mk 1, 15).

With the same sincerity with which You have answered us, we must add that Your answers have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them. We therefore feel obliged to re-propose, reformulating them, these questions to Your Holiness, who as the successor of Peter is charged by the Lord to confirm Your brethren in the faith. This is all the more urgent in view of the upcoming Synod, which many want to use to deny Catholic doctrine on the very issues which our dubia concern. We therefore re-propose our questions to You, so that they can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.”

Your Holiness insists that the Church can deepen its understanding of the deposit of faith. This is indeed what Dei Verbum 8 teaches and belongs to Catholic doctrine. Your response, however, does not capture our concern. Many Christians, including pastors and theologians, argue today that the cultural and anthropological changes of our time should push the Church to teach the opposite of what it has always taught. This concerns essential, not secondary, questions for our salvation, like the confession of faith, subjective conditions for access to the sacraments, and observance of the moral law. So we want to rephrase our dubium: is it possible for the Church today to teach doctrines contrary to those she has previously taught in matters of faith and morals, whether by the Pope ex cathedra, or in the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, or in the ordinary universal magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world (cf. Lumen Gentium 25)?

Your Holiness has insisted on the fact that there can be no confusion between marriage and other types of unions of a sexual nature and that, therefore, any rite or sacramental blessing of same-sex couples, which would give rise to such confusion, should be avoided. Our concern, however, is a different one: we are concerned that the blessing of same-sex couples might create confusion in any case, not only in that it might make them seem analogous to marriage, but also in that homosexual acts would be presented practically as a good, or at least as the possible good that God asks of people in their journey toward Him. So let us rephrase our dubium: Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between homosexual persons, thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God? Linked to this dubium is the need to raise another: does the teaching upheld by the universal ordinary magisterium, that every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out, continue to be valid?

You have insisted that there is a synodal dimension to the Church, in that all, including the lay faithful, are called to participate and make their voices heard. Our difficulty, however, is another: today the future Synod on “synodality” is being presented as if, in communion with the Pope, it represents the Supreme Authority of the Church. However, the Synod of Bishops is a consultative body of the Pope; it does not represent the College of Bishops and cannot settle the issues dealt with in it nor issue decrees on them, unless, in certain cases, the Roman Pontiff, whose duty it is to ratify the decisions of the Synod, has expressly granted it deliberative power (cf. can. 343 C.I.C.). This is a decisive point inasmuchas not involving the College of Bishops in matters such as those that the next Synod intends to raise, which touch on the very constitution of the Church, would go precisely against the root of that synodality, which it claims to want to promote. Let us therefore rephrase our dubium: will the Synod of Bishops to be held in Rome, and which includes only a chosen representation of pastors and faithful, exercise, in the doctrinal or pastoral matters on which it will be called to express itself, the Supreme Authority of the Church, which belongs exclusively to the Roman Pontiff and, una cum capite suo, to the College of Bishops (cf. can. 336 C.I.C.)?

In Your reply Your Holiness made it clear that the decision of St. John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be held definitively, and rightly added that it is necessary to understand the priesthood, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, in order to understand correctly our Lord’s decision to reserve Holy Orders to men only. On the other hand, in the last point of Your response You added that the question can still be further explored. We are concerned that some may interpret this statement to mean that the matter has not yet been decided in a definitive manner. In fact, St. John Paul II affirms in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that this doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and therefore that it belongs to the deposit of faith. This was the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium raised about the apostolic letter, and this response was approved by John Paul II himself. We therefore must reformulate our dubium: could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the Sacrament of Orders, which the Church cannot change?

Finally, Your Holiness confirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent according to which the validity of sacramental absolution requires the sinner’s repentance, which includes the resolve not to sin again. And You invited us not to doubt God’s infinite mercy. We would like to reiterate that our question does not arise from doubting the greatness of God’s mercy, but, on the contrary, it arises from our awareness that this mercy is so great that we are able to convert to Him, to confess our guilt, and to live as He has taught us. In turn, some might interpret Your answer as meaning that merely approaching confession is a sufficient condition for receiving absolution, inasmuch as it could implicitly include confession of sins and repentance. We would therefore like to rephrase our dubium: Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?

Vatican City, August 21, 2023

Walter Card. Brandmüller                     

Raymond Leo Card. Burke

Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez

Robert Card. Sarah

Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun

 cc: His Eminence Rev. Luis Francisco Card. LADARIA FERRER, S.I.

They did not receive a reply to this Dubia.

There may be reasons for that.  One may be that Pope Francis intends to answer these questions through the Synod itself, and come down squarely on the side of orthodoxy in a clear way.  There is, in my view, reason to believe that.  He may, accordingly, have felt that he didn't want to jump the gun.

Or he may be wanting to explore this topic in the fashion I noted above, although that would presumably end up in some document regarding pastoral care, rather than one that goes much further than that.

Whatever the case, damage has been done.  A group of "liberal" left wing Catholics that would convert crosses into personal set asides is already assuming the Pope is endorsing their views.  The press is assuming this to be the case.  Thousands of orthodox Catholics are also assuming this to be the case.

If, therefore, after a years long process the result is to reaffirm the historic understanding of the Church in a clear and definitive way, which I think is likely, those parties will howl with protest and rage and feel that they were betrayed.  If the result isn't clear, and with Pope Francis they tend not to be, the deep distrust of the current Papacy, together with the current College of Cardinals, will deepen and a rift that's been developing will be worse.  If a middle ground is developed, it'd have to be very truly middle ground not to spark discontent on both sides.

Catholics should, of course, pray for the Synod and have Faith.  But that doesn't mean that they have to accept this course of action in holding it as a good idea until the fruits are seen.  There's reason to be distressed, and that's a reason for prayer.

Finally, I'd note that when Pope Francis came into his office, he spoke of only occupying it briefly before retiring.  He's now 86 years old and just commencing a process that will only conclude in 2024 and then take some time for results to be issued.  We seem to live in an age when octogenarians simply assume continued life and health. Pope John XXIII was an old 81 years old when he died in June 1963 (when I was just a few days old).  He'd convened Vatican II the year prior, and while faithful Catholics do not have the leeway to condemn Vatican II the way that some Rad Trads do, it's always been a question of whether Vatican II would have looked a bit different, and whether that would have been good or bad, had he lived.

No reigning Pope since that time has lived to this age.

Footnotes:

1. Most of the attention has been on homosexual attraction, but an open question is that if a deep-seated inclination in that direction lessens, in some fashion, its sinfulness such that the practitioners of it, in some fashion, can receive a benediction, why wouldn't it be true of other sexual sins?  I.e, can somebody excuse their adultery, or whatever this way?

The answer is of course going to be no, and that excusing sin is not the intent at all, but it will be taken that way.  In the Church of England (Episcopal Church) there's never been an endorsement of divorce or same gender marriage, but the door was cracked open and its not questioned now.

2.  Pope Francis has a habit of citing himself, which is what he's done here.  While not technically improper, and other authors do it, it is a bit confusing and a cite to yourself is not necessarily as convincing as one to another source.

On this comment, the concept that other forms of marriage, when discussed here, are analogous to marriage but cannot "strictly" be called marriages, implies that they can loosely be regarded as marriages.  This is the very sort of thing which causes orthodox Catholic concern.

3. This is undeniably somewhat true, but a really slippery slope.  

And its not completely true.  Denial and rejection of sin would seem to be absolutes.  Of course, that isn't what the Pope means, but rather he means to suggest we need to be careful with the origins of sin, or so that is what he seems to be meaning.