為什麼教宗方濟各決定不寫主教會議後的宗座勸諭？

十一月七日«La Croix International»登了一篇Arnaud Join-Lambert的文章。

他列出五個理由，解釋方濟各為什麼這樣做，字裡行間見他是站在方濟各一邊，但他的五個解釋，也正肯定我的看法。

(１) 藉所有大會的文件及這三年的工作，教宗一直在「指出」Synodality（共議同行）是教會必有的特點，不必再多講。

(２) 在教宗的領導下Synodality本是一個關於管治教會的神學原則「發展成」一個活出這管治的生活方式，一個「共議同行」的風格。

(３) 教宗在認同大會最後結論前三天，頒布了«Dilexit nos» 通諭談耶穌聖心的愛。這不是最好的方法勸諭大家生活出Synodality，不需再寫一份勸諭了？

(４) 一個大會有三個幅度：1.大會的經驗，2.產生的文件，3.具體的執行。教宗不寫會議後勸諭，是要我們立即開始執行大會的結論。從此在教會內無論什麼權威都要按「會議結論」指示的風格執行，而且也要許諾按「會議結論」指示的方向作出具體的「改革」，大家再不該延遲了，現在是Synodality時代了。

(５) 方濟各的做法也可能是要我們採取一個「按環境的處事方式」。在他關於怎麼做神學工作的«Motu Proprio»文件“Ad theologiam promovendam”裡，他說神學該用歸納法，一個「普遍有效」的理論是死胡同製造很多問題。不寫一份勸諭是示意地方教會發揮自己，具體執行Synodality的方式來適應事實。在「大會總結」裡不是說「每洲會議」也可以是一個有關的創新？真正的革新能改變事實，貼近地方的處境。Synodality的未來不再跟一份通諭，而是

按大洲、國家、教區的處境去接受「大會總結」，不再等教宗（指示），大家要一起Synodally行動。

兄弟姊妹們，你們不害怕嗎？

 

11月13日

討論Synodality的「主教會議」結束了，但「Synodal」教會開始運作了。

我11月9日的文章恐怕太長，太複雜了，但主要的是最後的一段：

『那又長又複雜的「大會結論」，既由教宗方濟各認同了，就有了教宗勸喻的訓導權威，從今起信理部的Cardinal Tucho隨時會把它當作聖旨，徹底更改信仰內容及教會二千年的傳統紀律。這多麼可怕！？你們今晚睡得着嗎？』

2024年11月12日

今天彌撒讀經，聖保祿對他徒弟及繼承人（弟鐸）說：「你所講的，該合乎健全的道理……要講健全無可指摘的話。

天主拯救眾人的恩寵已經出現，教導我們棄絕不虔敬的生活，和世俗的貪慾，要節制地、公正地、虔敬地在今世生活。」

福音中耶穌說：「你們做完吩咐你們的一切，仍然要說：我們是無用的僕人，我們不過做了我們應做的事。」

主教會議順利結束了嗎？

10月27日第十六屆週期主教會議（The XVI Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops）宣佈結束。會議通過的文件教宗立即認同了它，所以他說不會寫一份會議結束後的宗座勸諭（Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation）。各方面都發覺這是一個完全「創新的」做法；但似乎沒有多少人指出這做法有問題。我正以為它有問題，但不敢公開提出來，我怕我有悲觀的成見使我判斷錯了。但終於見到三篇文章，我才放膽在這裡表達我對教會的擔憂。

第一篇是Jules Gomes於11月1日的文章“The Church of Permanent Revolution”；第二篇是Sandro Magister於11月4日所寫的文章“Tutto, tranne che sinodale. La strana Chiesa voluta da papa Francesco”；第三篇是Bishop Robert Barron 11月5日的文章“Some Thoughts Upon Returning from the Second Session of the Synod”。

我寫下列幾點意見供各位教友參考：

第一，這次主教會議名不符實。這一個「第十六屆週期主教會議」（The XVI Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops）是教宗保祿六世在1965年，梵二大公會議結束前，以“Apostolica Sollicitudo”文件創立的那個「主教會議」，已到了第十六屆週期會議。保祿六世創立這「主教會議」的目的很清楚：是建立一個週期性的機會，讓教宗對某些問題能夠得到他「主教兄弟們」的意見，也就是宗徒的繼承者，主教們，發揮對教會「集體領導」的一件工具。

教宗方濟各上任之後五年，以“Episcopalis communio”文件對教宗保祿六世的計劃作了一些更改。

但這次開會，方濟各連他自己訂下的規矩也沒有遵守：忽然以他自己的權威，邀請了 96位男女平信徒，以有投票權的成員身份參與會議。

教宗固然有權召開任何形式的諮詢會議，但他絕對不能說這次他改善了保祿六世的原有計劃，他借「主教會議」的名，以一個「雜合的會議」取代了「主教會議」。

第二，舉行主教會議的目的該是什麼？ 從教宗方濟各任內舉行的「主教會議」，我們可以發覺他每次都想為教會的道理或紀律作出一些更改，而不是討論怎樣維護這些道理和紀律。他用2014-2015年關於家庭的會議，想讓離婚再婚的教友領受聖體。用亞馬遜會議想通過祝聖「德高望重的已婚男性教友」（viri probati）為司鐸。這次會議，從他任命的兩位領導人物及由秘書處發出的文件，我們見到他有一些更廣泛的目標：更改教會的聖統制（成為一個由「領了洗者」組成的民主團體）；成立女性執事（為建議女性晉鐸開路？）；取消司鐸獨身的制度；改變「性」倫理的傳統道理［從祝福同性伴侶（homosexual couples）開始］。

為達到這些目的，開會的方式強調分享，壓制討論。主教們圍着桌子與非主教們一齊由所謂“Facilitator”牽着鼻子走。對大會中的一切，絕對嚴格的保密，使我們教眾沒有正規的途徑得悉大會的進展（他們不是強調聆聽、參與嗎？）。

第三點，其實，他們的陰謀看來失敗了。雖然會議中很少正式討論，但當「領導者」提出他們的目的時，遇到了相當強烈的反對。甚至教宗在會議外肯定了不會設立女執事。大會也沒有多討論、那已經在以前多次主教會議中討論過的，「取消司鐸獨身制度」。

2023年主教會議沒有有作出任何決議，祇寫了一個Summary。LGBTQ這個代名詞曾在大會文件中堂堂出現了的，在Summary中已不再出現了。大家以為一切將在2024年會議中討論和表決。

誰也想不到，信理部在2023年的會議結束後不久，竟出了一個強硬的「聲明」“Fiducia Supplicans”，堅持神職人員，在某些環境中，可以祝福「同性配偶」（homosexual couples），這聲明在教會中引發了空前的大分裂（非洲主教們特別強烈反對），在教友中也造成了很大的混亂。那聲明似乎被擱置了。

又有新事。教宗宣佈他已將一切有爭論性的問題，交給他所任命的幾個研究小組，他們將在2025年交卷。這做法一方面使期待改革的激進派失望，保守的傳統派也擔憂這些問題將來會有怎樣的解決。

組織會議者在網上（“X”及“Facebook”）提出一個調查問卷；問一個問題：「你以為這次主教會議，有沒有推進教友參與教會使命的熱忱？」。有人看到並拍了照片作證；答覆「有的」，一直祇有十幾個百分點；答覆「沒有」的卻有百分之八十幾；這個調查本應要24小時完成，但未到24小時，他們就把它提前刪除了。面對這樣的失敗，他們會認命了罷？

第四點，最後的嘗試 — 最後的危機。

個別題目既不再討論，也不會有結論，那末2024年10月的會議會有什麼結論？Synodality的勝利！Synodal Church！一個「絕無條件，全面開放的」教會！也就是領了洗者的「共議同行的」民主團體！

但教廷2018年頒佈的，也由方濟各批准的，一個文件清楚的說：在天主教教會內Synodality是一個原則：聖統階級，藉着主教會議（大公會議及各級法定的主教會議），領導教會團體。

這是兩個絕對不同的「教會學」，後者是梵二「教會憲章」的訓導，前者是梵二後荷蘭教會行的路（他們出版了新的教理，現在荷蘭的教會已奄奄一息）；也是德國教會，在羅馬召開這次主教會議前，已開始行的路（至今沒有被喝停，2022年德國教會少了五十萬教友）。英國聖公會有了女主教，通過了同性婚姻，現在聖公會全球大團體中百份之八十，Global Anglican Future Conference，已宣告不願承認英國大主教為他們的精神領袖。

2024年主教會議的Instrumentum Laboris建議讓各國主教團享有「決定天主教教理的獨立權」。

那不等於變成聖公會一樣？我們不再是至一、至公、從宗徒傳下來的教會，也不再是至聖的教會，因為再沒有可靠的倫理訓導，來領導教友分辨善惡了。

如果那建議被接納，我們的教會完蛋了。面對這危機，有主教、樞機呼籲教友祈禱，聖神保佑了大會，沒有通過這可怕的建議；但大會的結論並不清晰，很多細節都要待將來以“Synodal”方式澄清，「留下了尾巴」。

第五點，主教會議怎樣結束了？

奇怪的新事不斷發生，真多姿多彩！

如我在此文開端所說，主教會議閉幕的那天，教宗說他認同大會表決的文件，他不會照傳統寫一份「會後勸諭」（Post-Synodal Exhortation）了。

我肯定有人非常欣賞教宗的謙虛和對大會成員的信任。我卻不以為然。

如果真是教宗接納了大會的決定，我認為他並不明智：

尤其因為這次大會不是正式的主教會議；會議的結論更加應該說「祇有」諮詢的價值，教宗認同它等於給它一個有權威的訓導價值。

以前主教會議的結論祇是十幾個很簡明的建議（concise deliberations），而且並不公開，交給教宗，他可以絕對自由地決定接納與否。那做法完全尊重教宗的權威，教宗也因此要負責寫一個會議後的勸諭，他需要用充份的時間寫這份勸諭。現在教宗立刻認同一份這麼長的文件，他怎麼能為文件的每一句話負起責任？

我還有很多理由質問：這篇大會的結論，究竟有什麼價值？編寫這文件初稿的是誰？是大會選出的，一個真能代表大會的小組嗎？大會的成員有充份的時間研究這份草案，預備討論嗎？大會成員提出的「修正」由誰處理？每個修正是否經過全體成員去討論及表決？表決「修正」並不是簡易的工作。我們的印象是：研究文件及討論「修正」都進行得很倉卒，這麼長的一份文件絕對不可能在這樣的大會中認真通過。我再問：教宗又怎能對這最後的文件全面負責？

除非假設，根本是教宗指示並領導大會寫了這文件。

這假設不是一個陰謀論嗎？不。大家知道教宗相信「程序」（時間重要過空間）。開始一個程序比較在這次會議中得到成果更重要。

主教會議結束了，但「共議同行的教會」（Synodal Church）開始了！我們該生活其中！

我們祇能把自己交託於聖神了。

瑪利亞進教之佑，教會之母，為我等祈！

 

祝聖拉特朗大殿紀念慶日

Did the Synod on “Synodality” End Smoothly?

On October 27, the XVI Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops announced its closing. The Pope immediately approved of the document adopted by the Synod and said he would not write a Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation. All parties found this to be a completely “innovative” approach, but it seems that few have pointed out that this approach was rather problematic. I felt that way, but didn’t dare to raise it publicly. I feared that my pessimistic mindset may have led me to wrong judgments. But, then, after reading three articles, I now boldly express here my worries for the future of our Church.

The first article, “The Church of Permanent Revolution” was written by Jules Gomes on November 1. The second is “Tutto, tranne che sinodale. La strana Chiesa voluta da papa rancesco” written by Sandro Magister on November 4. The third article is Bishop Robert Barron’s “Some Thoughts Upon Returning from the Second Session of the Synod” on November 5.

I write down the following remarks for your reference:

First, to call this Synod on Synodality a Synod of Bishops is a misnomer.

The “XVI Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops,” which opened solemnly in 2021, is the sixteenth periodical meeting of the “Synod of Bishops” founded by Pope Paul VI with the motu proprio “Apostolic Sollicitudo.” The purpose of Paul VI’s creation of the “Synod of Bishops” is apparent: to provide an opportunity, periodically, for the Pope to obtain the opinions of his “brother bishops” on specific issues so it is an instrument for the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, to collegially exercise their role in leading the Church.

Five years after Pope Francis took office, he made changes to Pope Paul VI’s original plan with the release of the apostolic constitution “Episcopalis communio.” However, for this latest meeting, he did not even abide by the rules he set himself. Suddenly, with his personal authority, he invited 96 lay men and women to participate in the Synod as voting members.

The Pope obviously has the power to convene any form of consultative meetings, but this time he could not say that he improved Paul VI’s original plan. He used the name “synod” to replace the “Synod of Bishops” with a hybrid kind of meeting.

Second, what should the purpose of holding a Synod be?

From the “Synods” held under Pope Francis, we can see that he wants to change the Church’s doctrines or disciplines each time rather than discuss how to safeguard these doctrines and disciplines.

He used the Synod on the Family (2004-2005) to try to let the divorced and remarried Catholics receive Holy Communion. He wanted to use the Synod of Amazon to introduce “the ordination of highly respected married laymen (viri probati) as priests. And for the Synod this time, from the two leading figures he appointed and the documents issued by the secretariat, we can see that he has some broader goals: to change the hierarchical system of the Church (replace with a democratic group of baptized people); to establish female deacons (opening way for female priests); to abolish priestly celibacy; and to change the traditional doctrine on “sexual” ethics (beginning with the blessings the homosexual couples).

To achieve these ends, the Synod meetings were held with the procedure in which sharing was emphasized while discussion was limited. Bishops, along with the non-bishops surrounding a table, were led by the nose by the so-called “facilitators.” Everything in the assembly was kept strictly confidential, that we, the People of God, had no way to learn about the progress of the assembly, though the “leaders” said they gave much importance to sharing and participating.

Third, their agenda failed.

Although there were few formal discussions in the assembly, the “leaders” encountered strong opposition when they proposed their agenda. Even the Pope affirmed, outside the synod, that there would be no female deacons. The assembly seems did not discuss the “abolition of priestly celibacy,” an issue that had already been discussed many times in previous synods.

The 2023 Synod of Bishops took no resolutions; only a Summary of the discussed topics was given to the members and to the public. Everyone assumed everything would be discussed and voted on in the 2024 Synod assembly.

The acronym LGBTQ once appeared solemnly in the synod documents, did not appear in the Summary.

Surprise! Surprise! The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, between the Synods in 2023 and 2024, issued a strong declaration “Fiducia Supplicans,” insisting that clergy can bless “homosexual couples” in certain circumstances. This declaration caused unprecedented division in the Church, with the African bishops in the forefront of protest, and great confusion among the faithful. The declaration, finally, was put on hold.

But then, there was other surprise. Between the 2023 and 2024 Synods, the Pope announced that he had entrusted several study groups to study all those controversial issues, and they would submit their responses in 2025. This approach, on the one hand, disappointed the radicals; on the other hand, it left the traditionalists still worried about how those problems would be solved at the end.

The Synod organizers posted an online survey on “X” and “Facebook”; one question asked: “Do you believe that synodality as a path of conversion and reform can enhance the participation in the mission of all the baptized?” Someone saw the survey and took photos to testify. The answer for “yes” remained at a dozen percent, while “no” was well over 80%. This survey, which was supposed to be completed in 24 hours, was taken down before the set time. Faced with such a failure, will they accept their fate?

Fourth, the final attempt—final danger.

Individual topics were no longer to be discussed, and there will be no conclusion either. So, what remained to be discussed in the October 2024 assembly? Synodality! A Synodal Church! A Church in which “the baptized,” a democratic group, “talk together and walk together”!

But a document issued by the Holy See in 2018, with the approval of the Pope, stated clearly that Synodality is the principle by which the hierarchy leads the Church body through synods (ecumenical councils and statutory synods at all levels) according to the law.

These are two entirely different ecclesiologies. One is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium). The other is the way taken by the Dutch Church immediately after the Vatican II (they even published a new catechism; and today the Church in the Netherlands is moribund). It is the “Synodal Path” taken by the German Church, which started before the Synod on Synodality was convened in Rome (it has not been stopped so far, and the German Church has lost half a million members in 2022). The Anglican Church in England has female bishops and approved same-sex marriages, now 80% of the global Anglican community, the Global Anglican Future Conference, has announced that they will recognize no more the Archbishop of Canterbury as their Primate.

The Instrumentum Laboris of the 2024 Synod recommends, the bishops’ conference in each country should enjoy “autonomy in determining ‘Doctrine’.”

Doesn’t that mean the Catholic Church becomes the same as the Anglican Church? We will no longer be the one, catholic, apostolic Church? Nor the holy Church, because there are no longer reliable ethical teachings to lead the faithful to distinguish good from evil.

Facing such terrible danger, some bishops and cardinals called on the faithful to pray. The Holy Spirit has blessed us, the assembly did not approve that terrible proposal. However, the Synod’s conclusion “left a tail behind.” The long section on Part IV of the final document, where it speaks of the links for unity: episcopal conferences and ecclesial assemblies (paragraphs 124-129) makes some good clarifications, but leaves many points to be clarified for future “synodal” reflections. The future remains very fluid.

Fifth, has the Synod on Synodality really been concluded?

Strange new things keep happening.

As I said at the beginning of this article, on the closing day of the Synod, the Pope said that he agreed with the document the Synod adopted and that he would not write a “Post-Synodal Exhortation” according to tradition.

I’m sure some people greatly appreciate the Pope’s humility and confidence in the Synod participants. But I have some reservation:

If the Pope really accepted the decision of the Synod, I think he is unwise:

This assembly is not a formal Synod of Bishops; this is a more reason why its conclusion should be said to have “only” advisory value. The Pope’s approval of it is equivalent to giving it an authoritative teaching value.

In the long history of the Synod of Bishops, there were only a dozen concise deliberations, not to be made public, as conclusive advises to be offered to the Pope from his brother bishops. The Pope has absolute freedom to decide whether to accept them. That practice fully respects the papal authority, and the Pope is responsible for writing a post-synod exhortation. He needs to spend sufficient time writing this exhortation. Now that Pope Francis immediately endorsed such a lengthy document, how can he take the responsibility for its every word?

The faithful may readily accept the authority of the Pope, but several questions are in order: What is the value of this synod conclusion? Who wrote the draft of this document? Is it a group elected by the Synod plenary assembly that can really represent them? Will the members of the plenary assembly have sufficient time to study this document? Who handles the “amendments” proposed by plenary assembly members? Has each amendment been discussed and voted on by all members? The study of the document and the discussion of the “amendments” are complicated operations. Such a long document can’t be seriously made in a hurry. I ask again: How can the Pope be fully responsible for such final document?

Unless we assume that it was the Pope who directed and led the writing of this document.

Isn’t this assumption a conspiracy theory? No. Everyone knows the Pope believes in “process” (time is greater than space). What could not be achieved in this assembly, can be achieved in the process that begins now. The Synod has ended, but the Synodal Church begins now! We have to live in it!

We can only entrust ourselves to the Holy Spirit.

Our Lady, Help of the Christians, Mother of the Church, pray for us!

 

Dedication of Lateran Basilica

Il Sinodo si è concluso bene?

Il giorno 27 ottobre “la Sedicesima Assemblea Ordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi” è stata dichiarata conclusa. Il Documento conclusivo è stato subito ratificato da Papa Francesco, il quale dice, perciò, che non scriverà una Esortazione Apostolica post-sinodale. Tutti hanno notato questa grande “novità”, ma non mi risultava che questa sia stata trovata “problematica”, come a me è apparsa tale. Temendo che il mio giudizio fosse erroneo a causa del mio “pregiudizio’ pessimistico, non l’ho osato fare manifesto.

Tre articoli apparsi in seguito, che ho potuto leggere, mi incoraggiano a condividere le mie preoccupazioni con chi visita il mio blog:

Il primo è stato quello di Jules Gomes (il 1 Nov.) “The Church of Permanent Revolution”. Il secondo di Sandro Magister (4 Nov.) “Tutto, tranne che sinodale. La strana Chiesa voluta da papa Francesco”. Il terzo di S.E. Mons. Robert Barron (5 Nov.) “Some Thoughts Upon Returning from the Second Session of the Synod”.

Ecco le considerazioni che desidero condividere con i lettori:

(1) Il Sinodo ora concluso non può essere chiamato “Sinodo dei Vescovi”.

È stato inaugurato come “La Sedicesima Assemblea Ordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi”, cioè la Sedicesima Assemblea Ordinaria di quel Sinodo dei Vescovi, istituito da Papa Paolo VI, nel 1965, verso la fine del Concilio Vaticano II, con il documento “Apostolica Sollicitudo”, con lo scopo precipuo di dare al Papa una occasione periodica, di avere consigli dai suoi “fratelli Vescovi” su problemi particolari. Il Sinodo è dunque uno strumento per i Vescovi, successori degli Apostoli, di esercitare collegialmente il loro ufficio di pastori della Chiesa universale.

Papa Francesco, cinque anni dopo la sua elezione, fece alcuni cambiamenti al Regolamento del Sinodo con il documento “Episcopalis communio”.

Ma per questo recente Sinodo fece, di sua iniziativa, una cosa oltre le nuove regole da lui stabilite, invitando 96 non Vescovi ad essere membri del Sinodo con diritto di voto.

Il Papa ha ovviamente autorità di convocare qualunque specie di riunioni consultative, ma non può dire di aver migliorato la costituzione del Sinodo data da Papa Paolo VI. Con il nome del Sinodo dei Vescovi Papa Francesco ha istituito un nuovo raduno ibrido al suo posto.

(2) Quali devono essere gli scopi di un Sinodo?

Nei Sinodi celebrati sotto Papa Francesco vediamo che si mira sovente a cambiare qualche punto di dottrina o di disciplina della Chiesa invece di preservare la tradizione.

Nel Sinodo sulla Famiglia del 2014-2015 si ha cercato di amettere i divorziati risposati al sacramento della comunione. Nel Sinodo di Amazonia si ha cercato di amettere i “viri probati” al sacerdozio. Questa volta, dai documenti emanati dalla Segreteria del Sinodo si constata che c’è un’ agenda molto più vasto: cambiare la struttura gerarchica della Chiesa in una democrazia dei battezzati, istituire il diaconato per le donne (il che porterà anche al sacerdozio femminile?); abolire l’obbligo del celibato dei preti di rito latino; modificare la tradizionale morale sessuale (cominciando con la benedizione delle coppie omosessuali).

Per raggiungere tali scopi si impone una procedura: molto “Sharing” – poca discussione; i Vescovi e non vescovi attorno ad una tavola, guidati come bambini dai “facilitatori”; severo obbligo di segreto su quel che capita nel sinodo, cosichè il popolo cristiano non ha nessun modo legittimo di seguire un Sinodo “sinodale”, che insiste su ascolto e partecipazione!?

(3) le macchinazioni sembrano fallite

Nonostante la riduzione delle discussioni, le proposte degli organizzatori del sinodo hanno incontrato forte resistenza. il Papa, fuori del Sinodo, ha perfino detto chiaro che non ci sarà il diaconato femminile. L’argomento dell’abolizione del celibato clericale, (che, tra l’altro, è comparso già molte volte nella Chiesa in diverse occasioni) non sembra abbia avuto molta menzione.

La sessione che si concluse nell’Ottobre 2023 non ha registrato nessuna deliberazione, ma ha presentato solo un Sommario degli argomenti trattati.

 l’acronimo LGBTQ che avera fatto ingresso solenne nei documenti sinodali, non comparve più nel Sommario. Tutti pensano che le discussioni e deliberazioni si faranno nella sessione del 2024.

Di sorpresa, poco dopo la fine della sessione del 2023, il Dicastero della Dottrina ha emanato una Dichiarazione “Fiducia Supplicans”, dove afferma che in certe circostanze gli ecclesiastici possono benedire le copie omosessuali. La Dichiarazione ha causato una spaccatura raramente verificata nella Chiesa (con i Vescovi Africani in prima linea di contestazione) e grande confusione nel popolo cattolico; I responsabili, sembra, abbiano dovuto “sospendere” la decisione.

Sorpresa di nuovo. Il papa fa sapere che egli ha assegnato tutti i problemi particolari, venuti alla luce nella sessione del 2023, a dei “gruppi di studio” i quali consegneranno a lui i risultati di studio a metà del 2025.

I “riformisti” si sentono delusi, i “tradizionalisti” rimangono preoccupati.

Nel frattempo gli organizzatori del Sinodo hanno voluto fare un sondaggio (su “X” e “facebook”) con una sola domanda “Pensi che il sinodo è riuscito a promuovere lo spirito di partecipazione e communione in vista della missione della Chiesa? “Qualcuno ha  fotografato le risposte che cominciavano a venire, il risultato è stato costante, sempre solo poco più di 10% di “si”, e più di 80% di “no”. Il sondaggio doveva durare 24 ore, ma prima che finisse, l’hanno tolto dalla rete. Davanti a tale disfatta, si ritireranno in buona pace?

(4) Ultimo tentativo – Ultimo pericolo

Se tutti i problem particolari sono tolti della discussione e non saranno risolti nel Sinodo, con che cosa finirà il Sinodo dal 2024? La vittoria della Sinodolità! La Chiesa Sinodole! Una Chiesa incondizionatamente inclusiva!, cioè una communità democratica di battezzati che camminano insieme …

Ma quel documento del 2018, della Congregazione per la Dottrina, pure approvato da Papa Francesco, dice che la sinodalità nella Chiesa Cattolica è il principio che la gerarchia, attraverso i Sinodi dei Vescovi (Concilio Ecumenico ed altri legittimi Sinodi a diversi livelli) guida il popolo di Dio.

Queste due Ecclesiologie non sono compatibili, questa è fedele all’insegnamento del Vat II (Lumen Gentium), l’altra è la via seguita dalla Chiesa di Olanda subito dopo il Vat II (con il loro “nuovo catechismo, per cui quella Chiesa è ora quasi moribonda), è la via iniziata nella Chiesa in Germania (chiamata “la via Sinodale”, prima che la Chiesa Universale iniziasse il Sinodo sulla Sinodalità. Nel 2022 quella Chiesa ha perso mezzo millione di fedeli), è la via seguita dalla Chiesa Anglicana di Londra (ha conferito l’episcopato a donne e riconosciuto matrimonio di copie omosessuali. Recentemente la Global Anglican Future Conference, che rappresenta più di 80% della communità mondiale degli Anglicani, ha scritto all’arcivescovo di Canterbury minacciandolo di non più essere riconosciuto come primus inter pares).

L’Instrumentum Laboris della sessione sinodale del 2024 contiene la proposta di codificare autonomia delle Conferenze episcopali nazionali in materia di dottrina.(!)

Non diventeremo come la Chiesa Anglicana? Non saremo più la Chiesa “una, cattolica ed apostolica”! Non più la Chiesa “santa”, perchè senza affidabili principi morali per discernere tra santità e peccato.

Se questa autonomia fosse stata approvata, serebbe crollata la nostra Chiesa. Il Signore non lo ha permesso. Molti fedeli, avvisati del pericolo, hanno pregato. E sono stati esauditi. Deo gratias.

Però, quella sezione non breve della Parte IV del Documento finale, dove parla dei “Legami per l’unità: Conferenze episcopali e Assemble ecclesiali” (paragrafi 124-129) fà alcune buone precisazioni, ma lascia molti punti da precisare a future riflessioni “sinodali”. Il futuro rimane ancor molto fluido.    

(5) Come si è concluso il Sinodo?

Altra novità!

Come già detto sopra, alla chiusura del Sinodo il Papa ha dichiarato che riconosce in blocco il Documento conclusivo del Sinodo e non scriverà una Esortazione post-sinodale.

Suppongo che molti hanno ammirato in ciò l’umiltà del Santo Padre ed la fiducia che pone nei membri sinodali. Ma io ho le mie riserve: Se il Papa ha veramente “accettato” il risultato del lavoro dei sinodali, mi sembra non prudente da parte sua.

Le conclusioni di un Sinodo hanno solo un valore consultivo (specialmente di questo che non è neanche un vero Sinodo), accettandole in blocco il Papa dà ad esse il valore di un magistero autentico.

I sinodi precedenti, quasi tutti, hanno concluso con alcune concise deliberazioni, ben discusse e votate; queste non vengono pubblicate, ma consegnate al Santo Padre, il quale liberamente fa uso di quelle “deliberazioni”, e di sua responsabilità scrive una Esortazione, e tutto questo prende tempo. Adesso invece, mi domando, come ha potuto il Papa capire tutto il contenuto di un lungo documento e prendere la responsabilità di ogni suo contenuto?

Eppoi, tornando su questo documento mi vengono tanti interrogativi.

Chi ha scritto la bozza di questo documento? Una commissione veramente rappresentativa, eletta dai Sinodali? Quanto tempo hanno avuto, i sinodali, per capire il documento presentato e prepararsi alla sua discussione? Preparare richieste di emendamenti? Chi è incaricato di smistare i, suppongo, numerosi emendamenti e prensentarli per la discussion e votazione? Votare gli emendamenti può essere una operazione molto delicata. In fine abbiamo impressione che tutto questo si ha dovuto fare con molta fretta. Come fa il Santo Padre a prendersi la responsabilità di tale prodotto?

A meno che supponiamo che sia stato il Santo Padre stesso a indicare la direzione di questo documento finale.

È questa supposizione “conspiracy theory”? No. Il Santo Padre crede nel “processo” (tempo è più importante dello spazio). Iniziare un processo più che ottenere sulbito certi risultati.

Il Sinodo è concluso, ma il processo è iniziato! Con questo documento conclusivo incomincia la Chiesa Sinodale; in essa dovremo vivere!

Preghiamo lo Spirito Santo e affidiamoci a alla Madonna.

Auxilium Christianorum, Mater Ecclesiae, Ora pro nobis.

 

 

Festa Dedicazione Basilica Lateranense.

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.