分類: 信仰
Fa senso avere una mascot per il Giubileo? O non sarebbe stato meglio scegliere un Santo Patrono?
(Questo breve articolo era inteso per il mio blog che è principalmente in cinese, ma, per paura che gente zelante ne faccia qualche traduzione meno fedele, come è capitato sovente, mi affretto a fornire questa mia traduzione personale)
Ho visto molte critiche contro la mascot dell’Anno Giubilare, principalmente perché la ditta che l’ha prodotta ha la fama di aver parecchi prodotti che noi cattolici diremmo poco decenti.
Ma che cosa è una mascot? Qualcosa che viene considerato un “porta fortuna”. Ora questo non sottintende qualcosa di superstizioso? (Forse l’uso generale ha diluito molto questo senso superstizioso e forse non c’è da darci troppa importanza).
Ma il Giubileo non è già una grande fortuna in sé? Esso commemora la nascita del Salvatore. Perché i frutti di quest’anno di grazia siano più abbondanti, non sarebbe stato meglio sceglierci un Patrono celeste?
Il 2025 è il 1700° Anniversario del Concilio Ecumenico di Nicea (325-2025 A.D.). Questo Concilio, che è stato sempre riconosciuto ed accettato da tutte le Chiese cristiane, ha dichiarato eretica la dottrina di Ario ed ha affermato che la persona di Gesù del Vangelo è vero Dio e vero uomo, Figlio di Dio incarnato per portarci la salvezza.
Il Concilio di Nicea non ha subito sradicato l’Arianesimo. Nella lunga battaglia per difendere la verità della fede il Santo Vescovo Atanasio ha sofferto pesanti persecuzioni. Grazie alla sua perseveranza ed al sostegno della Cristianità, oggi noi, nel recitare o cantare il Credo, possiamo ad alta voce proclamare che Gesù è Figlio di Dio, consostanziale col Padre. Per difesa di questo “homoousios”, Atanasio e molti fedeli hanno pagato un caro prezzo. Non sarebbe conveniente che noi prendiamo Sant’Atanasio come nostro Patrono di questo Anno Giubilare?
Quest’anno è anche il 60° della chiusura del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II. Questo Concilio, per la sua grandiosità, per la sua serietà e per la sua felice conclusione, è una pietra miliare nella storia della Chiesa. Purtroppo, c’è chi, mettendo da parte il vero frutto prezioso del Concilio, e proclamando invece un cosiddetto “spirito del Concilio”, ha cercato di manomettere la Sacra Tradizione della Chiesa: il rinnovamento diventa riforma, l’aggiornamento diventa conversione allo “spirito dei tempi”.
Penso che un buon inizio dell’Anno Giubilare dovrebbe essere un serio studio dei Documenti del Concilio Vaticano II, specialmente della Costituzione Dogmatica su la Chiesa (Lumen gentium) e della Costituzione Pastorale su la Chiesa nel mondo contemporaneo (Gaudium et spes) con assoluto rispetto dell’ermeneutica della continuità, sottolineata tante volte da Papa Benedetto XVI. Insisto che bisogna capire questi Documenti nella continuità del Magistero autentico.
Per i miei fratelli e sorelle di Hong Kong, penso di organizzare qualche occasione per studiare insieme questi preziosi Documenti.
Does it make sense to have a mascot for the Jubilee? Or would it not have been better to choose a Patron Saint?
(This short article was intended for my blog which is mainly in Chinese, but, for fear that zealous people will make some less faithful translation, as has often happened, I hasten to provide this personal translation of mine)
I have seen a lot of criticism against the mascot of the Jubilee Year, mainly because the company that produced it has the reputation of having several products that we Catholics would call less than decent.
But what is a mascot? Something that is considered a “fortune bringer” (a “lucky charm”). Now doesn’t this imply something superstitious? (Perhaps general usage has diluted this superstitious sense a lot and so we should not give it too much importance.)
But isn’t the Jubilee already a great fortune in itself? It commemorates the birth of the Savior. In order for the fruits of this year of grace to be more abundant, wouldn’t it have been better to choose a heavenly Patron?
This year 2025 is the 1700th Anniversary of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325-2025 A.D.). This Council, which has always been recognized and accepted by all Christian Churches, declared the doctrine of Arius heretical and affirmed that the person of Jesus of the Gospel is true God and true man, the Son of God incarnate to bring us salvation.
The Council of Nicaea did not immediately eradicate Arianism. In the long battle to defend the truth of the faith, the Holy Bishop Athanasius suffered heavy persecution. Thanks to his perseverance and the support of the Christia people, today we, in reciting or singing the Creed, can loudly proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father. In defense of this “homoousios”, Athanasius and many of the faithful paid a high price. Would it not be fitting for us to take Saint Athanasius as our Patron of this Jubilee Year?
This year is also the 60th anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1965-2025 A.D.). This Council, for its grandeur, for its seriousness and for its happy conclusion, is a milestone in the history of the Church. Unfortunately, there are those who, putting aside the truly precious fruit of the Council, and proclaiming instead a so-called “spirit of the Council”, have tried to tamper with the Sacred Tradition of the Church: renewal becomes reform, updating becomes conversion to the “spirit of the times”.
I think that a good start to the Jubilee Year should be a serious study of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, especially the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium) and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes) with absolute respect for the hermeneutic of continuity, emphasized so many times by Pope Benedict XVI. I insist that these Documents must be understood in the continuity of the authentic Magisterium.
For my brothers and sisters in Hong Kong, I plan to organize some opportunities to study these precious Documents together.
主顯節後星期一 讀經有感
聖若望一書3:22-4:6 我們遵守了天主的命令，行了祂所喜悅的事， 祂的命令是叫我們信祂的子耶穌基督。 那遵守天主命令的，就住在祂內，祂也住在這人內， 我們知道祂住在我們內，是藉祂賜給我們的聖神。
耶穌向宗徒們說：
天主會給你們另一位護衛者（聖神）
祂會教你們全部真理。
又向宗徒說：
你們到普天下去，教訓萬民，做我的門徒。
若望一書又說： 不要凡神就信，有假先知， 他們屬於世界，他們聽從欺詐的神。
有名有實的教友也是遵守天主命令的，
他們也有信德的意識，
但宗徒的繼承人，以教宗為首的主教團體，
藉聖神的助佑才能鞏固信友的信德。
主教會議的目的無非是為「維護」教會的道理及紀律，
不是為「更改」（見聖教法典）。
難道我們要祈求聖神，
推翻祂經宗徒傳給了我們的訓誨？
APPELLO URGENTE AL POPOLO CATTOLICO: PREGHIAMO PERCHÉ IL SINODO DEI VESCOVI SI CONCLUDA BENE
Penso che questi giorni dobbiamo concentrare l’oggetto delle nostre preghiere sul buon esito del presente Sinodo dei Vescovi. (Perché non lasci indesiderabili o addirittura pericolosi strascichi).
Il tema di questa XVI Assemblea Ordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi è la sinodalità. Ma che cosa è la sinodalità? Gli organizzatori del Sinodo ci dicono che l’etimologia della parola greca “synodos” vuol dire “camminare insieme”, per cui il sottotitolo del Sinodo è “Partecipazione e Comunione (per la) Missione”.
Ma c’è stato un documento preparato dalla Commissione Teologica Internazionale, approvato dall’allora Prefetto della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Chiesa e pubblicato con il permesso di Papa Francesco, nell’anno 2018. Questo documento spiega più adeguatamente la sinodalità, la quale ovviamente, per noi della Chiesa, deriva dalla realtà storica dei “sinodi”, eventi importanti quando lo Spirito ispira alla gerarchia della Chiesa come guidare il viaggio verso la meta escatologica.
Il Concilio Vaticano I ha affermato l’infallibilità del Papa, ma, a causa delle condizioni politiche, quel Concilio non ha potuto concludersi. Il Concilio Vaticano II ha completato il lavoro nel documento dogmatico sulla Chiesa (Lumen gentium), dove chiarisce che tutto il Popolo di Dio partecipa alla missione di evangelizzazione, ma è la gerarchia sostenuta dallo Spirito che ne assicura la retta direzione, preservando sempre il deposito della fede trasmesso dagli apostoli e dai loro successori. La corretta intelligenza della sinodalità non può ignorare la collegialità dei Vescovi.
Sin dall’inizio di questo Sinodo, i documenti che vengono dalla Segreteria, non danno importanza alla preservazione della fede, ma a cambiamenti, cambiamenti della struttura della Chiesa e dell’insegnamento morale sessuale, con particolare attenzione alle relazioni omosessuali.
Nel 2021, qualcuno ha presentato alla Congregazione della Dottrina della Fede la domanda: “Se è permesso benedire le coppie omosessuali”. La risposta fu: “No”, con abbondanti spiegazioni. E questa risposta è stata firmata dal Santo Padre.
Cinque Cardinali, vedendo che i documenti provenienti dalla Segreteria del Sinodo sembrano suggerire che questo problema sarebbe discusso nel presente Sinodo, per impedire questo spreco di tempo hanno presentato, tra i Cinque Dubia, anche questo problema, sperando che il Santo Padre vorrà confermare la sua posizione di pochi anni fa.
[Tra l’altro, fra i cinque Cardinali c’era anche il Cardinal Zen. Mi fa meraviglia che questo fatto di notizia internazionale non sia stato riferito sui due settimanali della Diocesi di Hong Kong. Forse si teme che i fedeli saranno scandalizzati e la Chiesa sarà divisa? Si pensa che i nostri fedeli siano dei bambini? Un problema così importante non dovrebbe interessare tutti? Non dovrebbero tutti partecipare ad una discussione? Qualcuno biasimerà il Zen, perché causa difficoltà al Santo Padre, mentre altri forse sono d’accordo che questi dubbi siano presentati al Papa. Non è una buona occasione per far maturare i fedeli, partecipando nel dibattito e accogliendo una conclusione secondo la fede?]
A nostra sorpresa, il Papa ha dato immediatamente una risposta, lunga e complessa, ma contraria a quella data pochi anni fa. In questa risposta si dice che in certe circostanze si può benedire le coppie sessuali. Noi non troviamo validi i ragionamenti in quella risposta, ma abbiamo semplificato la domanda, perché il Santo Padre possa rispondere: Si o No. A questa domanda riformulata non venne data nessuna risposta. Noi Cinque non abbiamo dato riscontro dettagliato a quei ragionamenti; personalmente ho tentato di farlo e lo potete trovare sul mio blog.
Il Sinodo si presenta come una impresa grande, che farà storia. C’è una fase di consultazione nelle Chiese particolari; poi ci sono le riunioni a livello continentale; finalmente si tiene il vero Sinodo.
Cominciando con la fase continentale, si nota uno stretto controllo della procedura. I dirigenti, con altri facilitatori, impongono molta preghiera, poi si fa condivisione di esperienze che suscitano emozioni, evitando però le vere discussioni. Anche nelle riunioni del Sinodo propriamente detto si impone lo stesso metodo. Ma la cosa più sorprendente è che tra i partecipanti ci sono 96 non vescovi (cioè 26 % dell’Assemblea) con diritto di voto. Ovviamente si intravvede il tentativo di cambiare la natura gerarchica della Chiesa in un sistema democratico.
Il Papa ha il potere di convocare qualunque specie di riunioni di consultazione, ma il Sinodo dei Vescovi, fondato da Papa Paolo VI, ha lo scopo specifico che il Papa possa, ad intervalli di pochi anni, sentire il parere dei suoi fratelli vescovi su qualche argomento specifico. Con non-vescovi votanti questo non è più un Sinodo dei Vescovi.
Sintetizzando le mie preoccupazioni, presenterei come oggetto delle vostre preghiere la mia speranza sui tre punti seguenti:
Primo: Sul procedimento delle riunioni.
Perché questa Assemblea possa chiamarsi Sinodo dei Vescovi, deve tornare a quel procedimento stabilito dall’inizio da Papa Paolo VI e che ha funzionato molto bene per tanti anni. Tocca ai vescovi dirigere l’andamento, partecipare attivamente nelle discussioni e votare precise deliberazioni da presentare al Santo Padre come consigli da parte dei suoi fratelli vescovi.
Questo sembra ormai non realizzabile in tutto, perché si vede che la procedura ora nel 2024 è la stessa del 2023. I membri stanno ancora attorno a tavolini a godere il calore inebriante di una riunione di famiglia, lasciando che i facilitatori li conducano allo Spirito Santo… Molte preghiere, molto sharing, ma non discussioni…
Possiamo solo sperare che i vescovi esercitino la virtù della “parresia” sovente raccomandata dal Santo Padre. Almeno non lascino che i non-vescovi votino insieme a loro.
Secondo: Su che cosa discutono i vescovi in questa sessione del 2024?
Alla fine della prima sessione, si è votato su una relazione sommaria, nessuna deliberazione. Si è visto che l’acronimo LGBTQ, che ha solennemente fatto apparizione nei documenti preparatori del Sinodo, non appare più. Però tutti supponevano che i problemi sarebbero discussi nell’Assemblea del 2024.
Poco dopo la fine della Prima Sessione, il Dicastero per la Dottrina della Fede ha emanato una Dichiarazione, “Fiducia supplicans“, dove dice che, in certe circostanze, gli ecclesiastici possono benedire coppie omosessuali. (Le ragioni sono più o meno quelle contenute nella risposta ai Dubia dei cinque Cardinali). Nella Dichiarazione, il Prefetto del Dicastero dice pure che questa è molto chiara e non suppone di dover tornare sull’argomento. Decidere così, senza consultare i vescovi che sono pure nel mezzo del Sinodo, è una incredibile arroganza.
Dopo la pubblicazione della Dichiarazione, ci fu una grande spaccatura nella Chiesa e confusione tra il popolo cristiano. [Ovviamente i cattolici di Hong Kong non hanno sentito tutto quello che sta capitando nella Chiesa, tanto meno hanno preso parte nel dibattito]. Il Papa ed il Prefetto del Dicastero hanno detto di capire la situazione, ma non hanno ritirato la Dichiarazione. Allora, di questo di discuterà in questa Seconda Sessione 2024?
Poco dopo, il Papa scrive al Segretario del Sinodo che egli ha affidato a 10 Gruppi di Studio i problemi particolari che sono affiorati nella Prima Sessione. Allora, che cosa rimane da discutere ai membri della Seconda Sessione del Sinodo?
Io penso che bisogna almeno concludere il dibattito sulla benedizione delle coppie omosessuali. Spero che i vescovi possano convincere il Papa di rimandare sine die l’esecuzione della Dichiarazione. Non ha detto Gesù a Pietro: “Tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos” “Tu poi, una volta tornato sui tuoi passi, consolida i tuoi fratelli” (Lc 22:32)?
Conviene veramente che ci sia una parola chiara su tutto questo problema, perché mentre procede il Sinodo, a poca distanza dalla sede del Sinodo, si sta facendo gran chiasso (James Martin con tutti i Cardinali e Vescovi che gli tengono bordone). Tutti avranno visto anche le foto del Santo Padre che recentemente ha ricevuto con gran calore i fautori del transgenderismo (novanta minuti di incontro!)
Terzo: Senza gli argomenti particolari, si discuterà sulla Chiesa sinodale.
Ho paura che ciò equivalga a discutere se i fedeli devono avere diritto di partecipare alla responsabilità ed autorità di pastori, che finora appartiene alla gerarchia. Forse, vedendo che non vinceranno su questo a livello di Chiesa universale, battaglieranno per una certa non-uniformità, cioè, per il riconoscere una certa indipendenza delle Conferenze episcopali o forse anche di Vescovi individuali, in materia di dottrina di fede.
Questa prospettiva ci spaventa, perché la nostra non sarà più la Chiesa cattolica. Non ci deve fare riflettere il fatto che la Chiesa Anglicana di Londra, perché ha riconosciuto il matrimonio omosessuale, ha visto rinnegata la sua autorità primaziale da parte di più di 80% della grande famiglia Anglicana (Global Anglican Future Conference)?
Non serve preoccuparsi, l’importante è che facciamo penitenza e preghiamo (specialmente il Santo Rosario). La speranza non sarà mai delusa.
Un grido di allarme da Joseph Zen.
18 ottobre 2024
Festa di San Luca Evangelista
Let’s Pray for the Successful Ending of the Synod
I have not posted any articles online for a long time. But now I feel that I must write something to help my brothers and sisters in the Lord to understand what is most important thing to pray for in this moment. What I am feeling most anxiously about is how this Synod on “Synodality” can be successfully (decently) concluded, anyone who has read my blog post on February 15 this year will understand.
The theme of the Sixteenth Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops is “Synodality,” but what exactly is “Synodality”? Based on the etymology of the Greek word “Synod,” it means “walking together;” and then in Chinese, it is translated into “talking together” and “walking together”: (participation, communion and (for the) mission).
But there is a Church document that more adequately explains the meaning of the word Synodality which comes obviously from the important historical Church events, the Synods, the structure through which the Church hierarchy leads the Church through history.
The First Vatican Council affirmed the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. However, due to the outbreak of war, that Council could not be completed. The Second Vatican Council emphasized the Collegiality of bishops in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), with a clear explanation. The entire People of God should participate in the mission of evangelization. However, it is the Church hierarchy that ensures the direction of the Church’s journey and preserve the “depositum fidei” handed down from the Apostles. Jesus handed over the Church to “the Apostles headed by Peter,” and the Successors of the Apostles are the bishops.
Since the beginning of this Synod, the two cardinals who lead the assembly and the new prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith did not stress the preservation of the faith, but emphasized changes, especially changes to the Church’s structure and ethical teachings; especially regarding “sex” ethical principles, most of all: same-sex relations.
In 2021, someone asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “whether it is allowed to bless same-sex couples.” The answer was “no,” along with a detailed explanation. Pope Francis also signed and confirmed the document.
The documents coming from the Synod Secretariat seemed to imply that this issue would be discussed in the Synod. To avoid wasting discussion time of the Synod, five cardinals raised this issue among other “dubia” (doubts) to the Pope, hoping that he would clearly reconfirm his position in this regard not many years ago.
【By the way, one of those five cardinals is Joseph Zen. I wonder why this world news did not appear in our Chinese and English diocesan weeklies Kung Kao Po and Sunday Examiner! Is it out of fear that the laity would feel shocked or that the Church would split? Are our laypeople like children who cannot judge by themselves? If the Church is divided on this big issue, shouldn’t its members be concerned? Won’t people have their stance? Shouldn’t they participate in the debate? Some Hong Kong Catholics who know Joseph Zen may reprimand him for making things difficult for the Pope, while others may support him in raising the dubia. Isn’t it a good opportunity to help the faithful mature by participating in debates and arguments to find the answer according to our faith? 】
To our surprise, the Pope gave us an answer right the next day. It was a very long and complicated reply that overturned the statement given in previous years, that is, “It is possible to bless the same-sex couples under certain circumstances.” We felt that those complicated reasonings were not valid at all. We asked the Pope to give a “Yes” or “No” answer, but he did not respond anymore. That answer could not have been written by the Pope himself. It was obviously prepared by the persons in charge of the synod, to support their reasons for changing the Church teachings (We five cardinals did not list in detail the reasons to refute those complicated arguments, but I gave a personal detailed answer that can be found on my blog.
This Synod was an unusually large-scale enterprise, with consultation in local Churches, continental Conferences, and finally the formal Synod assembly. At the continental level, it was clear that the central secretariat tightly controls the procedures: sharing is emphasized, while discussion is to be avoided. The same method is used in the official Synod meetings(!). The most surprising thing is that among the synod participants, there are 96 “non-bishops” (equal to 26% of the whole group) who have the right to vote. Obviously, the purpose of this Synod was to overthrow the Church hierarchy and implement a democratic system.
The Pope has the power to convene any kind of advisory meeting. However, the Synod of Bishops initiated by Pope Paul VI was specifically designed to allow the Pope to hear the opinions of his brother bishops. With the “non-bishops” voting together, it is no longer a Synod of Bishops.
Returning to what I said in the beginning, we must pray for the successful (decent) ending of this Synod, I would hope, at least, on the following three points:
First: about the way the meeting is held. Lest people in the future continue to ask: “Is this Synod of Bishops really a synod of bishops?” For this assembly to be appropriately called a synod of bishops, it should return to the original methods used, when the synod was established by Pope Paul VI. These methods have been effective for many, many years: to let the bishops take the lead, discuss and vote, and, as brother bishops, submit their advice to the Pope for reference.
It seems that this first goal can no more be completely realized, the meeting procedures in 2024 are the same as in 2023. They still gathered around round tables, in the warm family gathering; obediently letting the facilitator lead them on how to connect with the Holy Spirit. More praying, more sharing, and less arguing…We can only hope that the participating bishops should exercise the virtue of “parresia” so recommended by the Holy Father, at least not allowing the non-bishops to vote along with them.
Second: What is for the bishops to discuss this time, in 2024? When the Synod of Bishops ended in 2023, it only voted on a “summary report”, without voting on any recommendations. Everyone could see the LGBTQ acronym, which appeared proudly in the Synod documents, did not appear in the summary. However, everyone assumed those issues would still be discussed at the 2024 conference.
Shortly after the end of 2023 session, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a long declaration “Fiducia Supplicans” On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, noting that clergy may bless same-sex couples under certain circumstances (the rationale was based on the reply to the dubia of the five cardinals, given before the beginning of the 2023 session). The Prefect of the dicastery even said that the declaration was clear enough and he was not prepared to discuss it further. “They” decided on the question, not consulting the bishops still during the Synod. This is incredible arrogance!
After the publication of that declaration, there was a great division in the Church and great confusion among the faithful. It was rare in the history of the Church. 【Of course, the Hong Kong Catholics who read the Kung Kao Po or Sunday Examiner had no chance to hear and talk on the subject!】 The Pope and the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith expressed “understanding” to the situation without retracting the declaration. So, will this issue still be discussed at the 2024 meeting?
Later, the Pope sent a letter to the Secretariat of the Synod, saying that he had entrusted ten “study groups” to examine individual issues arising from the 2023 Synod and they would not submit their “responses” until mid-2025. Does that mean all the issues will not be discussed and voted on at the 2024 Synod?
I think endless debate should be avoided at least on the issue of blessing same-sex couples. I hope the participating bishops can persuade the Pope to extend sine die for the declaration to take effect. Didn’t Jesus say to Peter: “Tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos” (Once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers).
If this issue is not resolved in the Synod, the future of the Church will be very unclear, because some clergy and friends of the Pope who insist on changing the Church tradition in this regard continue to push forward their plans with all strength. While the Synod is going on, they actively promoted their agenda outside the meeting hall. What is worrying is that even the so-called “New Ways Ministry,” which advocates transgenderism have been very warmly received by the Pope a few days ago.
Third: Without individual questions to debate, the Synod discussion will focus on the Synodality of the Church. I’m afraid this is tantamount to discussing whether the faithful should have more rights to “share” the responsibilities of the “pastors” in the Hierarchy. If those advocating for this change cannot win at the level of the whole Church, will they then fight for diversity among local churches? Should individual bishops’ conferences have an independent authority over the doctrine of the faith? This is a scary prospect. If this idea succeeds, we will no longer be the Catholic Church (the Church of England has recognized same-sex marriage, and their believers have become a minority of less than 20% of the global Anglican Church. How can we not be vigilant?).
It is useless for us to be anxious over these issues. Fast and pray (especially the Rosary)! Hope will never get disappointed.
A crying out from Joseph Zen
我們要祈禱，願主教會議順利結束
我很久沒有在網上寫文章，但現在我覺得一定要寫些東西，目的是幇助教內兄弟姊妹們，讓你們知道現在最重要為什麼目的祈禱。我覺得最緊張的，就是這個研究所謂“Synodality”的主教會議如何能順利結束。誰看過我今年2月15日所寫的網上文章，就會明白我為什麼緊張。
這個第十六屆常期主教會議題目是“Synodality”，但“Synodality”究竟是什麼？單單按希臘“Synod”這個字的詞源是「同行」，那麼中文就翻譯成了「共議同行」：參與、共融(為執行使命)。
但有一個教會文件，從Synod(會議)，這個教會重要的歷史事實，解釋Synod是在歷史中，聖統階級藉以領導教會的架構。
梵蒂岡第一屆大公會議欽定了教宗不能錯的道理，但因戰爭的爆發不能繼續完成大會。梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議在《教會憲章》內強調了主教們的Collegiality，作了清晰的交代。整個天主子民應該參與福傳的使命，但是聖統階級才能保證教會旅程的方向，並維護那從宗徒傳下來的信仰內容。耶穌將教會交給「以伯多祿為首的宗徒團體」，宗徒的繼承人就是主教們。
從這次主教會議的開始，領導大會的兩位樞機及教宗任命的信理部部長並不強調保存信仰，卻強調改變，尤其是改變教會的運作架構及倫理訓導；關於：「性」的倫理道理，尤其是關於同性的性關係。
2021年有人問信理部「能不能祝福同性伴侶(homosexual couples)」，答覆是「不可以」，而且有詳細解釋，教宗方濟各也簽字確認。
因為看見從主教會議秘書處來的文件暗示，在主教會議中會討論這個問題，有五位樞機，為避免主教會議中浪費時間再討論這個問題，在向教宗提出了幾個問題中，也提了這一點，希望教宗清晰重覆幾年前的論點。
【那五位樞機中有一位名叫陳日君，不知為什麼在《公教報》及《Sunday Examiner》都沒有見到這世界性的新聞！怕教友會震驚嗎？怕教會會分裂嗎？我們的教友是小朋友嗎？如果教會對這個大題目有分歧，教友們不應該關心嗎？每人不會有初步的立塲嗎？不應該參加辯論嗎？認識陳日君的香港教友有些恐怕會罵他難為教宗，但可能有人會支持他提出問題。參與爭論、參與辯論，對這個問題找到按信德應有的答案，不是幫教友成熟的一個好機會嗎？】
使我們覺得很奇怪的是，教宗第二天便給了我們答覆；一個很長、很複雜的答覆，推翻前幾年的答覆，即是說「在某些環境下是可以祝福的」。我們覺得那些複雜的理由根本不成立，我們請教宗給一個「Yes」或「No」的答案，他卻沒有再回覆。那個答案不可能是教宗自己當日所寫出來的，很明顯是大會負責人，準備好了，來支持他們改變教會道理的理據(我們五位樞機沒有一起詳細列出推翻那些複雜理據的理由，但我個人作了一個詳細的答覆，在我的博客(Blog)裡可以找到) 。
這次大會有空前的大規模，有地方教會的討論，七個大洲的洲會議，最後才是正式的主教會議。在大洲的階層，中央秘書處很明顯以特定的程序嚴加控制：強調分享，避免討論。想不到，在正式主教會議也用一樣的方法。最使人驚奇的是，在會議成員中竟有96位「非主教」(等於全體的26%)擁有投票權。明顯地這次大會的目的是推翻教會的聖統階級，推行一個民主制度。
教宗有權召開任何諮詢性的會議，但教宗保祿六世開創的主教會議，是專門為使教宗聽到他兄弟主教們的意見，有「非主教」一齊投票，已不是主教會議。
回到我開始講的，我們要祈禱為這主教會議順利結束，包括三點：
第一：開會的方式：免得在歷史上將來不斷有人問：「這次主教會議究竟是不是一個主教會議？」我以為要使這個會議能夠稱為主教會議，應返回這主教會議成立之初，很多年行之有效的方式，就是讓主教們領導、主教們討論、主教們表決，把他們的建議以主教兄弟的身份呈獻給教宗參考。
看來這第一個目標已不能完全成功，2024年的開會程序與2023年的還是一樣。他們(她們)還圍着一張桌子，陶醉在那溫馨的家庭大聚會中；乖乖地讓facilitator帶領他們(她們)如何到聖神那裡，多祈禱、多分享、少爭論……只能希望主教們多些爭取話事權，至少不能讓非主教與主教們一齊投票。
第二：這一次，2024年，主教們討論什麼？主教會議2023年結束時祇通過了一個summary，沒有表決任何建議。大家看到那堂堂入了大會文件的LGBTQ代名詞，在summary中再沒有出現，但大家都會假設那些問題在2024年的會議中還會討論。
2023年年尾信理部出了一個長長的「聲明」“Fiducia Supplicans”(《懇求的信賴》)，說在某些環境下神職人員可以祝福homosexual couples(理據就是2023年會議前，教宗答覆五位樞機疑問的那些)，並說這聲明很清楚，信理部不準備再討論。這是一個粗暴的行為，不讓主教們討論，「他們」為那問題作了結論。
那文件出現後教會內大分裂，信徒中大混亂，是教會歷史中罕有的【當然，看《公教報》及《Sunday Examiner》的香港教友對這一切不聞不問！】。教宗和信理部面對這局面表示「了解」，但沒有收回那聲明，那末2024年會議中還會討論這問題嗎？
稍後教宗致信給主教會議秘書處，說他把2023年會議中現出的個別問題都交給了十個「研究小組」，他們在2025年中才要交卷。那麼所有的問題都不在2024年主教會議中討論和表決了？
我以為至少關於祝福同性伴侶這個問題，應該避免無限地爭論下去。我希望主教們能勸服教宗決定把那聲明的執行期推至sine die (無定期)，耶穌不是對伯多祿說：“Tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos” (你反省清楚後，鞏固你的兄弟)。
如果這個問題在會議中得不到一個終止，教會的前景會很不明朗，因為堅持這方面要改變教會傳統的神長及教宗的某些朋友，都還繼續全力推進他們的計劃。他們在大會進行的同時，在大會會塲外面，積極推銷他們的計劃。使人擔心的是甚至那些主張性別可轉變的所謂「新方式事工」(New Ways Ministry)，這幾天，也受到教宗的熱情款待。
第三：沒有了個別問題，集中討論的將是教會的 Synodality。恐 怕這等於討論：教友是否應該更有權利「分擔」聖統階級「牧者」的職責。如果主張這變更的那些人，在整個教會內爭取不到，那麼是否會爭取在地方教會之間有多元化？個別主教團(Bishops’ Conference)在信仰道理上有獨立地位？這是一個很可怕的前景。如果這種想法成功，我們將不是天主教了(倫敦聖公會認同了同性婚姻，他們的信徒已成了全球聖公會不到兩成的少數了。我們能不警惕？)。
為這些問題我們緊張是無用的。守齋、祈禱(尤其唸玫瑰經)！我們絕不失望。
陳日君疾呼
I am accused of not following the “Hermeneutics of continuity” when criticizing the “Fiducia supplicans”!?
I must confess that I have often wasted my time following the program “Reason and Theology” of Michael Lofton, this big man with a little beard (who would do well to hide his tattoo when he speaks like a theologian), I have been driven by curiosity to hear the hilarious non sense he says. This time, however, I saw that he was criticizing me. With great seriousness, he is scandalized that I, who insist so much on the hermeneutics of continuity, now dare to criticize the “Fiducia supplicans” (26-06-2024).
This means that Mr. Lofton does not even know how to distinguish the different value of the pronouncements that come from Rome. If I remember well, Mr. Lofton has sometimes confessed that he is not a theologian, but it seems to me that he understands the differentiated authority of the Vatican documents less than anyone of my catechumens. I speak of the hermeneutics of continuity when speaking of the Ecumenical Councils, the highest degree of authority of the Magisterium.
The Declaration “Fiducia supplicans”, instead, is obviously the work of the Most Eminent Tucho, even if rubber-stamped by Pope Francis. I dare to say rubber-stamped because a few years ago, in response to the same question about the lawfulness of blessing homosexual couples, the Pope signed a Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and there the answer was “No”, while now the answer is “Yes”. I dare to say “rubber-stamped” also because, in the “Fiducia supplicans”, as well as already in the answer to our “Dubia” before the beginning of the Synod, I cannot smell the scent of Pope Francis. I smell instead the pen of the Most Eminent Tucho, who would have done better to pursue another career (in that other gender of literature, I mean).
It will be said that Mr. Lofton is defending the Pope, and nobody can blame him for that, but I am sure his nonsense will not help the Holy Father in any way.
I am wasting these minutes of time, not to defend myself from Mr. Lofton’s accusations, but to invite those who frequent his site to stop wasting their time and perhaps also their money.
Comments on Dr. Taylor Marshall’s: “Viganò vs. Barron on Vatican II and Benedict XVI”
Dear everyone,
I am old and still not yet back to my best form from my recent illness. I am trying to be up-to-date about everything happening in the Church, which, you will agree, is in a terrible state of confusion (Cardinals against Cardinals, Bishops against Bishops), I only hope that what I am writing now is not going to add to that confusion.
I happened to find on my i-pad one piece from Dr. Taylor Marshall “Viganò vs. Barron on Vatican II and Benedict XVI”. It’s dated 2020, but the debate is still going on and I want to join it.
******************************************************************************
Declaration of interest
– I almost always enjoyed viewing what is on the programme of Dr. Taylor Marshall, I am decidedly a traditionalist.
– I agree on several points with Archbishop Viganò, but I would not subscribe to everything he affirms.
– I admire Bishop Barron, I would like myself and all the Bishops to be like him, so learned and so balanced in his teaching of the Catholic Doctrine (I am only a little disappointed, that he is not as outspoken as I am – to my misfortune).
– I love Pope Benedict XVI as the father of my soul. The most precious thing I keep is a volume of his “Ultime conversazioni” that he sent to me with a dedication: “In union of prayer and thought”.
******************************************************************************
I want to comment on the quotation which Dr. Taylor Marshall made from Pope Benedict XVI:
“To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council (…). We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow.
And this today of the Church is the Documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them”
First of all, the fundamental thing we must believe is: God’s revelation is to be found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition from the Apostles (“We believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”).
Then, the Tradition is guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, especially through the working of the Ecumenical Councils (“Sacrosancta Synodus”) – meeting of the whole College of Bishops, Successors of the Apostles, under the leadership of Peter. The teaching of the Ecumenical Councils constitutes the most authoritative Magisterium.
So, we must believe that, through the Documents of Vatican II, the Holy Spirit has spoken to us, believers of today.
Pope Benedict believed strongly in the continuity of the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit, for him the only hermeneutics of the Council must be that of continuity, not of rupture.
I can’t understand how he can be misunderstood; the hermeneutics of continuity was constantly on his lips. Obviously, when he said: “We must remain faithful to the today of the Church“, he meant faithful to a today which is guaranteed to be faithful to the yesterday. A Council of today is faithful to all the Councils of yesterday, because the actor of today’s Council is properly the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit who guided all the past Councils, He cannot deny himself.
I would like to ask a question to Dr. Marshall and Archbishop Viganò: To which ‘yesterday’ do you want to be faithful? To the First Vatican Council ? Or to the Council of Trent? You trust more the Holy Spirit of the previous Councils? Don’t you think that the Holy Spirit may have said something new to all the previous Councils and may have new things to tell us today (obviously, nothing in contradiction to previous Councils)?
We believe that this Council, Vatican II, as all other Councils, is faithful to the continuous Tradition of the Church.
******************************************************************************
May be we must asks other questions to clarify our stands: “Which Council we have in mind in our discussion?”
(A) A vague “spirit of the Council” or the Council Documents?
It is nonsense to talk about the spirit of the Council, if you ignore the Documents of the Council. Were the long sessions of fierce discussion a futile exercise? The careful analysis of sentences? Even the meticulous pondering of a single word? The Documents are the fruit of the cooperation between the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the hard work of the Council Fathers with the help of many outstanding theologians. Only through the attentive reading of the Council Documents you can get to the real spirit of the Council.
(B) “The Council itself or the situation of the Church after the Council?“
Post hoc is not necessarily propter hoc. You cannot blame on the Council all the wrong things that happened after it in the Church.
The liturgical reform, for example, was maturing in the Church long before the Council, many thought that they knew what it had to be, and they simply ignored the Council Document. Then we could see so many abuses, with the consequent loss of the sense of reverence for the sacred Mysteries. When Pope Benedict appealed for the “reform of the reform”, he did not mean to repudiate the Council, but a distorted understanding of the real Council.
Distortions and amputations of Vatican II teaching abound.
The Constitution on the Church emphasizes rightly the common priesthood of the faithful, but many stop there. They forget that there is also a clear affirmation of the hierarchical teaching and governing authority in the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles. Now, with the name of XVI Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, they killed the real Synod of Bishops as established by Pope Paul VI and created a new hybrid body, which looks absolutely like a secular democratic assembly, something that they strongly deny. Emphasizing the etymology of the word “Synod”, they forget the historical reality of the Synods which guarantee the continuation of the Sacred Tradition.
The Decree on Ecumenism, that on Religious Freedom, and the Declaration Nostra aetate were taken as encouragement for a unique, universal “world religion”, dispensing us from the duty of missionary zeal, which is even called “proselytism”, a word with negative connotations. Pope John Paul II preached strongly against such misunderstanding.
Some people complained about what they thought was ambiguous in the Documents of the Council. To make clarity, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Cardinal Ratzinger, compiled the Catechism of the Catholic Church with a vast consultation of the world Episcopate, a secure guidance for evangelization and catechesis. Nobody should, light-heartedly, touch it, at least not without an equally vast consultation of the College of Bishops. The rich and clear Magisterium of Pope Wojtiła and Cardinal Ratzinger must have sufficiently dispelled all the clouds and shown to the Christian faithful the splendor of the truth.
The seeming failure of the Council may be explained by the lack of a good plan of its execution.
The Council of Trent succeeded to really reform the Church because of the leadership of bishops like St. Charles Borromeo after the Council through the several diocesan and regional Synods.
Cardinal Wojtiła took eight years of serious catechesis to start a real ‘aggiornamento’ in his diocese.
(C) “Many say there was a ‘Council of the Media’.“
From the times of past Councils to the present one, the means of communication have made enormous progress and have become, also, a terrible force in creating and spreading wrong ideas (in philosophy and in theology). Some media enjoyed the fierce battles during the Council and were happy to have those battles prolonged.
Unfortunately, there was a group of theologians, among them Alberigo, who sustained that the Council should go on, even after its conclusion. They sustained that the Council was an impetus given by the Holy Spirit which should make the Church always in a state of ongoing change.
Cardinal Ratzinger rejected such an idea. The Councils are moment of suspension, when the bishops gather together to discuss and find solutions to the problems of the times. At the end of Vatican II they reached almost unanimous conclusions. Now is time to go back to work. It is time to bring the light of Christ to the world. ‘Aggiornamento’ means this, to open the doors and the windows, to bring the Gospel to the peripheries of the world, as Pope Francis says, not only geographical peripheries, but existential peripheries (by the way, the bishops know better the existential peripheries in their particular geographic peripheries).
‘Aggiornamento’ is to let the light of Christ (Lumen) go out from the Church to reach all the peoples (gentes), and not to allow the spirit of the world to infiltrate the Church (as the organizers of the present Synod are doing when they try to introduce a pastoral method of appeasement).
Conclusion
I wish my friend Dr. Taylor Marshall to persevere in being a traditionalist, but to be also full of trust in the wisdom of Pope Benedict.
處於禮儀年中的「分水嶺」有感
剛過去的主日（5月19日）及5月20日的禮儀給我非常多的啟示。5月19日是五旬節，上午我舉行了聖神降臨節彌撒，下午我舉行了進教之佑堂的主保瞻禮彌撒，並傅堅振聖事。而5月20日是五旬節後常年期第一天，大家或會奇怪，每逢大瞻禮後也一定會緊隨著八日敬禮，為何五旬節後並沒有八日敬禮？這其實有特別意義，因為在教會禮儀年裡，有將臨期、聖誕期，稍後便是四旬期、復活節，直到五旬節，在這段日子中，教會已將耶穌救恩的中心事蹟敍述過，也將祂的勝利介紹給我們了。現在常年期，象徵我們這個在旅途中的教會，要跟隨耶穌的道路走下去，直至祂在末日，光榮地再來時。
這段常年期的開始，也正有一個很有意義的瞻禮，叫「教會之母」，這個其實與進教之佑非常有關係；從歷史知道，「進教之佑」，即是對教會整個團體的助佑，而非單單對每個領洗者的助佑。
當時歐洲天主教會面對回教軍隊厲害的威脅，其間經歷兩次打仗：一次是Lepanto海戰，另一次維也納（Vienna）給他們圍困。其時如果歐洲被回教軍隊長攻直下攻破，整個歐洲也會被侵佔。當時教會一起祈禱求聖母，在戰鬥力較弱的情況下，最後居然獲勝，自此他們恭敬聖母為「進教之佑」，有些地方也稱聖母是「勝利之后」，尤其法國更多以後者稱呼。
到了教宗比約七世（Pope Pius VII），拿破崙（Napoleon）於法國稱帝。他非常驕傲的認為教宗也須聽從他，但比約七世沒有遵從，拿破崙遂將他軟禁起來，後來認為軟禁亦未夠，甚至將教宗送去法國囚禁，當時教友們熱心祈禱，誦唸玫瑰經懇求聖母，最後拿破崙失勢，教宗得到䆁放，於5月24日當天返回羅馬，亦就定了當天為進教之佑的瞻禮日。
這個「教會之母」瞻禮，是教宗保祿六世（Pope Paul VI）於梵二大公會議時定下的。因為保祿六世認為，大公會議是聖母對整個教會的照顧，面對大公會議後的這個世界，所以他訂定這個瞻禮非常有意思——耶穌於十字架上，將教會交給聖母；而於聖經中，開首創世紀有一位「女人」，結尾默示錄也有一位「女人」，這兩章節是很關鍵的，我們可以看到，聖神來臨與聖母使命有著密切關係。
從禮儀上的安排已經可以看到，五旬節、聖神降臨可以說一個禮儀年中一個分水嶺，清晰地讓我們看到，之前耶穌已完成了祂的救恩，以後則交由我們這個旅途中的教會去完成——我們接受了祂，但是有挑戰的，我們不單只自己接受祂，也要將祂的福音傳揚到整個世界。
這是個新開始，旅途中的教會以後會不斷遇上挑戰，但也因著耶穌已完成救恩而得到保證。在世界之初已有預言，亞當厄娃因為魔鬼的引誘犯了罪，天主遂懲罰了魔鬼（蛇），對蛇說：「我要把仇恨放在你和女人，你的後裔和她的後裔之間，她的後裔要踏碎你的頭顱，你要傷害他的腳跟。」所以這是一場鬥爭，那條蛇想咬女人的腳跟，要害死她的後裔，但這位女人及其後裔會與魔鬼戰鬥，女人會踏碎魔鬼的頭顱，以上是《創世紀》的預言。
《默示錄》亦如是說：「有一位女人，身披太陽，腳踏月亮，頭戴十二顆星的榮冠」，又說「現在天主的權能與國度已得到勝利，而且天主顯示了基督的權柄」，那條大龍很憤怒，尤其是對這女人，因為這女人是耶穌的母親，所以牠與女人的後裔，即是「那些遵行天主聖意（誡命），且為耶穌作證的人」去交戰。現在是在戰爭的階段。耶穌已得勝，教會也好幾次取得勝利，現在即要我們繼續下去。所以我覺得，這個要我們準備去「打仗」的信息非常清晰。
你也許會說，我們參與教會是要尋求和平、安寧。當然，這方面我們可以完全放心，但做教友不是要我們坐在世間，等待天堂。耶穌從來沒有欺騙我們，神父為人領洗的時候會問，堅振的時候亦會重新再問：「你是否棄絕罪惡？是否棄絕魔鬼？是否信耶穌？是否能為死而復活的耶穌作見證？」所以參與教會是充滿希望的，是有基礎的，但也是具挑戰的。於佘山最初的聖母像，其實就是法國人所說的「勝利之后」。聖母幫助我們取得勝利，我們可放心依靠她，依靠耶穌，依靠聖神，但我們也須遵從天主的誡命，做耶穌的證人。
教會亦有一件聖事，叫堅振聖事。年輕人在成長過程中，會面對很多挑戰，所以需要一件聖事去堅強他們，鞏固他們的信仰（Confirmation）。
我於5月18日開始了一個哲學講座，為什麼？因為今天這個世界處於混亂之中，充滿了無神的哲學，很多現代的哲學也偏向無神主義，這實在非常可惜。當然天主教會的哲學可以給他們圓滿解答，但並非所有教友也認識，教友亦不會意識到我們正生活在這些無神論哲學的影響下。當然，你也許不需要深究各種哲學的理論，但你需要嗅得出哪些哲學道理是錯誤的，如果你持續祈禱，參加聖事，天主聖神會賜予你本能去分辦；縱使你未能做到十全十美，至少也應該是位虔誠教友，否則會很危險，因為很多哲學家的名稱你雖未聽過，但他們的哲學思想其實正在影響著世界，影響著你。所以今天的危機不再是回教對教會的攻擊、戰鬥，而是在世上這些危險的哲學思想，尤其是為年輕人。無疑，這些哲學家均是天才，他們的理論深具吸引力，如果教友不熟悉教會道理，便會被那些哲學思想所蒙蔽、欺騙，從而認為教會的信仰很膚淺。其實，膚淺的是我們對天主教信仰未有深入認識，所以，容易因那些哲學思想而被動搖。我希望大家可以學習多些教會道理也對哲學有所認識，去迎接今天的挑戰。
適值5月24日進教之佑瞻禮，集禱經祈求天主讓我們能抵抗「內外」的挑戰。有什麼內外挑戰？外來的挑戰除了前面所提及，回教國家的軍力還有另類國家政治的勢力。
我們今年紀念剛恆毅樞機（Celso Costantini）到中國帶領中國全國主教在上海舉行「主教會議」的一百週年紀念，他是第一個被教宗派到中國的代表（聽說在羅馬、澳門也有相關百週年紀念會議，可惜我未被邀請，無緣參加）。
百年前的危機是什麼？教會將保護中國教會的任務交給了法國，然而，將此任務交給一個國家政府，免不了會受政治影響，法國政府首要優先維護自己國家的利益，不會太關心教會事務，所以教宗秘密派遣他的代表剛恆毅樞機到中國，扺達之後才讓大家知道。當時中國政府非常歡迎教宗直接派遣代表到來，因為不需要再當法國人是教宗的代表。
教會初期在教難中渡過300年後，很多國家的皇帝信奉天主教會。當然他們會大力幫助教會，但有時也會插手教會事務，譬如教會歷代的大公會議好多次也被皇帝騷擾。教宗保祿六世在梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議舉行時曾說：『各位兄弟，我們多謝天主，幸好「教宗國」已沒有了，如果仍有的話，會帶來很大麻煩，現在沒有了，我們反而非常自由，由我們自主地進行會議。』—— 這是第一次，我們的大公會議再沒有任何政權來插手。
然而，少了政治上的勢力影響，卻有思想上的干預，在我們這個所謂的自由世界中，有很多不同哲學思想，對教會裡的人也成了很大的誘惑。教會裡神學思想也混亂了，這就成了教會內在的挑戰。
五旬期當天彌撒之中，第二篇讀經有兩個選擇，一個是《致格林多人前書》（第十二章），這篇為我們今天的教會非常重要，當中說「身體只是一個」，即基督的奧體，「卻有許多肢體」，每個人均有其任務，有猶太人、希臘人……。放諸今天，即可解釋作：不同職業的人，有不同學問的人，但最重要的，如聖保祿所說，有些是宗徒，有些是幫宗徒教書的人，當中有很多不同的神恩，尤其第二屆梵蒂岡大公會議講得很清楚，教會裡面是有系統的，第一屆大公會議肯定了教宗不會錯，即在一些信德的道理上教宗不能錯。但梵蒂岡第二屆大公會議延續第一屆未開完的部份時，繼續討論教會的結構。伯多祿被耶穌選為教會的磐石，但大家若細讀聖經，尤其是《宗徒大事錄》，便知道耶穌並非單單將教會交給伯多祿一個，他雖是宗徒之長，是一個很重要的中心，但教會並非只交予伯多祿一個人，而是交給宗徒們。梵二《教會憲章》的重點是宗徒們的「團體性」（collegiality）。
我們於5月14日才慶祝過聖瑪弟亞宗徒慶日，因為猶達斯出賣耶穌，所以猶達斯的懸空位置需要選出另一位宗徒補上，這就是瑪弟亞。耶穌選了十二位宗徒，這傳統一直繼續，猶太有十二個部族，我們的教會則從十二個宗徒開始。《宗徒大事錄》時常說「宗徒們」，而在聖神降臨時的祈禱，聖經也列出所有宗徒們的名字，聖母與他們一起祈禱，當然也有其他人，但其中最重要的卻是宗徒們，這概念非常重要。
最近主教會議的舉行形式卻似乎疏忽了這一點，會議讓很多其他人參與，甚至讓他們投票，成了並非純粹主教參與的會議，這實在非常危險。耶穌選了十二個宗徒，他們雖然並不是很堅強的人，且於耶穌受難時大部份都離開了，伯多祿甚至三次否認耶穌，只有若望緊隨耶穌；但耶穌沒有放棄他們，祂仍然倚重這十二位宗徒。而在祂復活後，仍與他們同席共飲，又給予伯多祿重新機會，三次問他是否愛祂，伯多祿這時記得，他曾否認耶穌三次，耶穌現在重複問他三次，就是要給他懺悔的機會。所以伯多祿答：「主，你知道我愛你。」雖然他曾一時軟弱、害怕，但其實一直也忠信地跟隨耶穌。
所以，整個教會也應該如此，主教們是宗徒的繼承人，就似宗徒與伯多祿是兄弟，主教們與教宗也是兄弟。而教宗不是單單有個名銜，是真的有特別權利，但他仍是主教們的兄弟，所以他需要多些採納他們的意見。大公會議是最具權威的，很多次也是由教宗發起的，最後的結論也須由他通過的。教宗保祿六世於梵二大公會議結束時，他訂定了一個「主教會議」，給教宗一個特別機會，大概每三年聚集一些主教代表；大公會議參與者有二千多人，很難時常聚集一起，而這個主教會議邀請二百多位主教代表，多數由主教團選舉出來，他們會聚集一起商量一些指定的題目，提供意見給教宗。
但那正在進行的會議卻已變質，當然，教宗可以叫任何人到來作諮詢，但這並不再是主教會議，他們甚至將「主教會議」此名稱改變，在羅馬手冊中主教會議的秘書處名字也由「Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops」改成「Secretariat of the Synod」，「Bishops」一字消失了，那麼，這是什麼Synod？這實在引起不少混亂。
Synodality 是源自Synod這希臘字的根源，譯作「共議同行」，但Synods是教會二千年來的傳統，它代表主教們開的會議，天主聖神曾應承保護宗徒們與教宗一起，現在主教會議變了質，造成教會的混亂，實在危險。
「內來的挑戰」也是講每個人的內心，我們細看五旬節第二篇讀經的選擇《致迦拉達人書》（第五章），當中很精采地指出有些人跟聖神，有些人跟隨自己的私欲偏情，所帶出不同的效果就是：「本性私慾的作為，是顯而易見的：即淫亂、不潔、放蕩、崇拜偶像、施行邪法、仇恨、競爭、嫉妒、憤怒、爭吵、不睦、分黨、妒恨、兇殺、醉酒、宴樂」。你可以如此區分，崇拜偶像，即拜邪神，不信天主；淫亂、不潔、放蕩、醉酒，即肉體的享受；更明顯看到的是，你如果不跟隨聖神，你便會變成一個自私的人，所以有仇恨、競爭、嫉妒、憤怒、爭吵、不睦、分黨、妒恨，甚至兇殺。殺人、打仗，這些可以是源於個人的自私，或是民族的自私，所以若不跟隨天主聖神，而投向私欲偏情，這個世界便會非常混亂。
我們教會需要堅守天主給她的制度，所以有大公會議。教宗保祿六世曾說：我要開一些會議，規模雖不及大公會議，但會叫做主教會議（Synod of Bishops）。希望教宗方濟各不要拋棄這個Synod of Bishops，希望他採納許多不同的意見之後，也要將這會議交給主教們，以聖經，以聖傳去辨別及答覆一些現在需要釐清的問題。但是很明顯的，這些是從人的內心開始的，那些聽從聖神的話的人，效果是什麼？「仁愛、喜樂、平安、忍耐、良善、溫和、忠信、柔和、節制」，所以世界上有兩類人——跟聖神的，或跟自己私欲偏情的。跟隨私欲偏情，後果就是你們現在所看到的世界；如何混亂。
上一篇讀經《致格林多人前書》教會中有不同肢體，耶穌定了宗徒們，宗徒的繼承人去處理教會內部發生的事，剛才我已說，世界上的思想很混亂，特別是關於倫理道德的，現在不知道教宗是出於同情心或愛心，認為那些對於有關性的倫理道德與教會不相符的人很可憐，稱那些同性戀者也彼此相愛，切不可排擠他們；其實我們絕對沒有排擠他們，照耶穌的教訓，我們與他們做朋友，讓他們接受我們，從而規勸他們，表示這個傾向本身不是罪，但當中的危險就是若照著這同性傾向作出性行為，便不合乎天主計劃，所以希望他們明白，要跟隨耶穌的旨意去行。
其實我們每個人也有不同的誘惑，沒有同性傾向也會有誘惑，未結婚的有未婚者的誘惑；結婚者有其誘惑；發聖願，表明不結婚的就算經過多年訓練，也會有其誘惑⋯⋯故我們需要求天主，求聖母保佑，從這裡開始，從自己開始去積極參與教會。既然教宗如此喜歡詢問全世界人的意見，我們當然也希望他讓主教們也有機會表達他們的意見，幫助聖統階級一起去執行天主給宗徒們的使命：教全世界的人去遵守耶穌的誡命：「你們往普天下去，向一切受造物宣傳福音。」