5 Cardinals submit dubia to Pope Francis about the Synod !
Oct 2, 2023 7:51:15 GMT
homeschooldad likes this
Post by iagosan on Oct 2, 2023 7:51:15 GMT
5 Cardinals have submitted a dubia to Pope Francis about the Synod on Synodality
The Five “Dubia” of Five Cardinals on Key Points of the Synod. To Which the Pope Has Not Replied
More than forty days have gone by since, on August 21, five cardinals delivered to Pope Francis and the prefect of the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith five of their “dubia” on as many key points of doctrine and morality.
But they have not received a reply. And so they have decided to make them public.
The five cardinals belong to as many continents. They are the German Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Burke of the United States, the Mexican Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, the Guinean Robert Sarah, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of China. Who in turn say they are certain that the late Cardinal George Pell also “shared these ‘dubia’ and would have been the first to endorse them.”
The five “dubia” they formulated touch upon the heart of the synod that opens in Rome on October 4.
They ask the pope whether or not the Church can teach the contrary of what it has always taught in matters of faith and morals, and whether a synod like the one underway, also made up of the ordinary baptized, can be recognized as having the authority that has always been exclusively that of the pope and the bishops.
More specifically, they ask that clarification be made on three points that are controversial today: the blessing of homosexual couples, the ordination of women to the priesthood, and sacramental absolution given to everyone and always, without conditions.
The document published in its entirety on this page is the letter that the five cardinals delivered to the pope on August 21.
Which, however, has a precedent. Because back on July 10 the five cardinals had delivered to Francis and to the prefect of the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith a first formulation of the same “dubia”:
And already the next day, July 11, the pope replied to them by letter, which came to the recipients on the 13th.
Except that this response seemed to the five cardinals as redundant (seven pages in the original in Spanish) as it was vague and elusive, quite far from resolving the five “dubia.”
Although signed by Francis, the letter displayed the writing style of his trusted theologian, the Argentine Victor Manuel Fernández, who would soon take on the new role of prefect of the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith.
The five cardinals therefore decided to resubmit their “dubia” to the pope, reformulated in a more stringent way, so that they must be answered with a “yes” or a “no,” without loopholes, as happens as a rule and as happened back in 2021, signed by then prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith Luis F. Ladaria, precisely in reply to a “dubium” on the blessing of homosexual couples:
As is known, this “no” from Cardinal Ladaria to the blessing of homosexual couples – published with the explicit “assent” of the pope – has in fact, however, been repeatedly contradicted by Pope Francis himself. And this is likely one of the reasons that led the former prefect of the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith, humiliated by the pope also on other serious issues, to cancel his participation in the synod that will open on October 4.
In any case, to the “dubia” as presented to him on August 21 the pope has made no reply. And after forty days of waiting in vain, the five cardinals have decided to make the correspondence public, entrusting it, in Italy, to Settimo Cielo.
So the following is the letter that the five cardinals delivered to the pope on August 21, preceded by a “notification” to the faithful in which they state the reasons for this initiative of theirs.
Notification to Christ’s Faithful Regarding “dubia” Submitted to Pope Francis
Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church” (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals “to assist the Roman Pontiff… individually… especially in the daily care of the universal Church” (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff.
By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of “dubia” [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his “responsa” [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five “dubia” to Pope Francis, a copy of which is attached. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.
Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of “responsa ad dubia” [responses to questions], we reformulated the “dubia” to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated “dubia”, a copy of which is attached, to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated “dubia”.
Given the gravity of the matter of the “dubia”, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully.
Yours in Christ,
Walter Card. Brandmüller
Raymond Leo Card. Burke
Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez
Robert Card. Sarah
Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun
Rome, 2 October 2023
To His Holiness Francis, Supreme Pontiff
Most Holy Father,
We are very grateful for the answers which You have kindly wished to offer us. We would first like to clarify that, if we have asked You these questions, it is not out of fear of dialogue with the people of our time, nor of the questions they could ask us about the Gospel of Christ. In fact, we, like Your Holiness, are convinced that the Gospel brings fullness to human life and responds to our every question. The concern that moves us is another: we are concerned to see that there are pastors who doubt the ability of the Gospel to transform the hearts of men and end up proposing to them no longer sound doctrine but “teachings according to their own likings” (cf. 2 Tim 4, 3). We are also concerned that it be understood that God’s mercy does not consist in covering our sins, but is much greater, in that it enables us to respond to His love by keeping His commandments, that is, to convert and believe in the Gospel (cf. Mk 1, 15).
With the same sincerity with which You have answered us, we must add that Your answers have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them. We therefore feel obliged to re-propose, reformulating them, these questions to Your Holiness, who as the successor of Peter is charged by the Lord to confirm Your brethren in the faith. This is all the more urgent in view of the upcoming Synod, which many want to use to deny Catholic doctrine on the very issues which our “dubia” concern. We therefore re-propose our questions to You, so that they can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”.
1. Your Holiness insists that the Church can deepen its understanding of the deposit of faith. This is indeed what “Dei Verbum” 8 teaches and belongs to Catholic doctrine. Your response, however, does not capture our concern. Many Christians, including pastors and theologians, argue today that the cultural and anthropological changes of our time should push the Church to teach the opposite of what it has always taught. This concerns essential, not secondary, questions for our salvation, like the confession of faith, subjective conditions for access to the sacraments, and observance of the moral law. So we want to rephrase our “dubium”: is it possible for the Church today to teach doctrines contrary to those she has previously taught in matters of faith and morals, whether by the Pope “ex cathedra”, or in the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, or in the ordinary universal magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world (cf. “Lumen Gentium”25)?
2. Your Holiness has insisted on the fact that there can be no confusion between marriage and other types of unions of a sexual nature and that, therefore, any rite or sacramental blessing of same-sex couples, which would give rise to such confusion, should be avoided. Our concern, however, is a different one: we are concerned that the blessing of same-sex couples might create confusion in any case, not only in that it might make them seem analogous to marriage, but also in that homosexual acts would be presented practically as a good, or at least as the possible good that God asks of people in their journey toward Him. So let us rephrase our “dubium”: Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between homosexual persons, thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God? Linked to this “dubium” is the need to raise another: does the teaching upheld by the universal ordinary magisterium, that every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out, continue to be valid?
3. You have insisted that there is a synodal dimension to the Church, in that all, including the lay faithful, are called to participate and make their voices heard. Our difficulty, however, is another: today the future Synod on “synodality” is being presented as if, in communion with the Pope, it represents the Supreme Authority of the Church. However, the Synod of Bishops is a consultative body of the Pope; it does not represent the College of Bishops and cannot settle the issues dealt with in it nor issue decrees on them, unless, in certain cases, the Roman Pontiff, whose duty it is to ratify the decisions of the Synod, has expressly granted it deliberative power (cf. can. 343 C.I.C.). This is a decisive point inasmuch as not involving the College of Bishops in matters such as those that the next Synod intends to raise, which touch on the very constitution of the Church, would go precisely against the root of that synodality, which it claims to want to promote. Let us therefore rephrase our “dubium”: will the Synod of Bishops to be held in Rome, and which includes only a chosen representation of pastors and faithful, exercise, in the doctrinal or pastoral matters on which it will be called to express itself, the Supreme Authority of the Church, which belongs exclusively to the Roman Pontiff and, “una cum capite suo”, to the College of Bishops (cf. can. 336 C.I.C.)?
4. In Your reply Your Holiness made it clear that the decision of St. John Paul II in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” is to be held definitively, and rightly added that it is necessary to understand the priesthood, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, in order to understand correctly our Lord’s decision to reserve Holy Orders to men only. On the other hand, in the last point of Your response You added that the question can still be further explored. We are concerned that some may interpret this statement to mean that the matter has not yet been decided in a definitive manner. In fact, St. John Paul II affirms in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” that this doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and therefore that it belongs to the deposit of faith. This was the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a “dubium” raised about the apostolic letter, and this response was approved by John Paul II himself. We therefore must reformulate our “dubium”: could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the Sacrament of Orders, which the Church cannot change?
5. Finally, Your Holiness confirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent according to which the validity of sacramental absolution requires the sinner’s repentance, which includes the resolve not to sin again. And You invited us not to doubt God’s infinite mercy. We would like to reiterate that our question does not arise from doubting the greatness of God’s mercy, but, on the contrary, it arises from our awareness that this mercy is so great that we are able to convert to Him, to confess our guilt, and to live as He has taught us. In turn, some might interpret Your answer as meaning that merely approaching confession is a sufficient condition for receiving absolution, inasmuch as it could implicitly include confession of sins and repentance. We would therefore like to rephrase our “dubium”: Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?
Vatican City, August 21, 2023
Walter Card. Brandmüller
Raymond Leo Card. Burke
Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez
Robert Card. Sarah
Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun
A high-profile precedent for this initiative of the five cardinals were the “dubia” presented to Pope Francis in 2016 on five controversial points of “Amoris laetitia,” the concluding document of the synod on the family:
Then as well Francis did not respond. And then as well, after many weeks of silence from the pope, the “dubia” were made public:
On that occasion the cardinals who came out into the open were four. In addition to Brandmüller and Burke, the Italian Carlo Caffarra and the German Joachim Meisner, both of whom passed away in 2017.
magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2023/10/02/the-five-%E2%80%9Cdubia%E2%80%9D-of-five-cardinals-on-key-points-of-the-synod-to-which-the-pope-has-not-replied/
or
archive.ph/h9MRw
The Five “Dubia” of Five Cardinals on Key Points of the Synod. To Which the Pope Has Not Replied
More than forty days have gone by since, on August 21, five cardinals delivered to Pope Francis and the prefect of the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith five of their “dubia” on as many key points of doctrine and morality.
But they have not received a reply. And so they have decided to make them public.
The five cardinals belong to as many continents. They are the German Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Burke of the United States, the Mexican Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, the Guinean Robert Sarah, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of China. Who in turn say they are certain that the late Cardinal George Pell also “shared these ‘dubia’ and would have been the first to endorse them.”
The five “dubia” they formulated touch upon the heart of the synod that opens in Rome on October 4.
They ask the pope whether or not the Church can teach the contrary of what it has always taught in matters of faith and morals, and whether a synod like the one underway, also made up of the ordinary baptized, can be recognized as having the authority that has always been exclusively that of the pope and the bishops.
More specifically, they ask that clarification be made on three points that are controversial today: the blessing of homosexual couples, the ordination of women to the priesthood, and sacramental absolution given to everyone and always, without conditions.
The document published in its entirety on this page is the letter that the five cardinals delivered to the pope on August 21.
Which, however, has a precedent. Because back on July 10 the five cardinals had delivered to Francis and to the prefect of the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith a first formulation of the same “dubia”:
And already the next day, July 11, the pope replied to them by letter, which came to the recipients on the 13th.
Except that this response seemed to the five cardinals as redundant (seven pages in the original in Spanish) as it was vague and elusive, quite far from resolving the five “dubia.”
Although signed by Francis, the letter displayed the writing style of his trusted theologian, the Argentine Victor Manuel Fernández, who would soon take on the new role of prefect of the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith.
The five cardinals therefore decided to resubmit their “dubia” to the pope, reformulated in a more stringent way, so that they must be answered with a “yes” or a “no,” without loopholes, as happens as a rule and as happened back in 2021, signed by then prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith Luis F. Ladaria, precisely in reply to a “dubium” on the blessing of homosexual couples:
As is known, this “no” from Cardinal Ladaria to the blessing of homosexual couples – published with the explicit “assent” of the pope – has in fact, however, been repeatedly contradicted by Pope Francis himself. And this is likely one of the reasons that led the former prefect of the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith, humiliated by the pope also on other serious issues, to cancel his participation in the synod that will open on October 4.
In any case, to the “dubia” as presented to him on August 21 the pope has made no reply. And after forty days of waiting in vain, the five cardinals have decided to make the correspondence public, entrusting it, in Italy, to Settimo Cielo.
So the following is the letter that the five cardinals delivered to the pope on August 21, preceded by a “notification” to the faithful in which they state the reasons for this initiative of theirs.
Notification to Christ’s Faithful Regarding “dubia” Submitted to Pope Francis
Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church” (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals “to assist the Roman Pontiff… individually… especially in the daily care of the universal Church” (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff.
By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of “dubia” [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his “responsa” [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five “dubia” to Pope Francis, a copy of which is attached. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.
Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of “responsa ad dubia” [responses to questions], we reformulated the “dubia” to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated “dubia”, a copy of which is attached, to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated “dubia”.
Given the gravity of the matter of the “dubia”, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully.
Yours in Christ,
Walter Card. Brandmüller
Raymond Leo Card. Burke
Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez
Robert Card. Sarah
Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun
Rome, 2 October 2023
To His Holiness Francis, Supreme Pontiff
Most Holy Father,
We are very grateful for the answers which You have kindly wished to offer us. We would first like to clarify that, if we have asked You these questions, it is not out of fear of dialogue with the people of our time, nor of the questions they could ask us about the Gospel of Christ. In fact, we, like Your Holiness, are convinced that the Gospel brings fullness to human life and responds to our every question. The concern that moves us is another: we are concerned to see that there are pastors who doubt the ability of the Gospel to transform the hearts of men and end up proposing to them no longer sound doctrine but “teachings according to their own likings” (cf. 2 Tim 4, 3). We are also concerned that it be understood that God’s mercy does not consist in covering our sins, but is much greater, in that it enables us to respond to His love by keeping His commandments, that is, to convert and believe in the Gospel (cf. Mk 1, 15).
With the same sincerity with which You have answered us, we must add that Your answers have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them. We therefore feel obliged to re-propose, reformulating them, these questions to Your Holiness, who as the successor of Peter is charged by the Lord to confirm Your brethren in the faith. This is all the more urgent in view of the upcoming Synod, which many want to use to deny Catholic doctrine on the very issues which our “dubia” concern. We therefore re-propose our questions to You, so that they can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”.
1. Your Holiness insists that the Church can deepen its understanding of the deposit of faith. This is indeed what “Dei Verbum” 8 teaches and belongs to Catholic doctrine. Your response, however, does not capture our concern. Many Christians, including pastors and theologians, argue today that the cultural and anthropological changes of our time should push the Church to teach the opposite of what it has always taught. This concerns essential, not secondary, questions for our salvation, like the confession of faith, subjective conditions for access to the sacraments, and observance of the moral law. So we want to rephrase our “dubium”: is it possible for the Church today to teach doctrines contrary to those she has previously taught in matters of faith and morals, whether by the Pope “ex cathedra”, or in the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, or in the ordinary universal magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world (cf. “Lumen Gentium”25)?
2. Your Holiness has insisted on the fact that there can be no confusion between marriage and other types of unions of a sexual nature and that, therefore, any rite or sacramental blessing of same-sex couples, which would give rise to such confusion, should be avoided. Our concern, however, is a different one: we are concerned that the blessing of same-sex couples might create confusion in any case, not only in that it might make them seem analogous to marriage, but also in that homosexual acts would be presented practically as a good, or at least as the possible good that God asks of people in their journey toward Him. So let us rephrase our “dubium”: Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between homosexual persons, thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God? Linked to this “dubium” is the need to raise another: does the teaching upheld by the universal ordinary magisterium, that every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out, continue to be valid?
3. You have insisted that there is a synodal dimension to the Church, in that all, including the lay faithful, are called to participate and make their voices heard. Our difficulty, however, is another: today the future Synod on “synodality” is being presented as if, in communion with the Pope, it represents the Supreme Authority of the Church. However, the Synod of Bishops is a consultative body of the Pope; it does not represent the College of Bishops and cannot settle the issues dealt with in it nor issue decrees on them, unless, in certain cases, the Roman Pontiff, whose duty it is to ratify the decisions of the Synod, has expressly granted it deliberative power (cf. can. 343 C.I.C.). This is a decisive point inasmuch as not involving the College of Bishops in matters such as those that the next Synod intends to raise, which touch on the very constitution of the Church, would go precisely against the root of that synodality, which it claims to want to promote. Let us therefore rephrase our “dubium”: will the Synod of Bishops to be held in Rome, and which includes only a chosen representation of pastors and faithful, exercise, in the doctrinal or pastoral matters on which it will be called to express itself, the Supreme Authority of the Church, which belongs exclusively to the Roman Pontiff and, “una cum capite suo”, to the College of Bishops (cf. can. 336 C.I.C.)?
4. In Your reply Your Holiness made it clear that the decision of St. John Paul II in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” is to be held definitively, and rightly added that it is necessary to understand the priesthood, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, in order to understand correctly our Lord’s decision to reserve Holy Orders to men only. On the other hand, in the last point of Your response You added that the question can still be further explored. We are concerned that some may interpret this statement to mean that the matter has not yet been decided in a definitive manner. In fact, St. John Paul II affirms in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” that this doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and therefore that it belongs to the deposit of faith. This was the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a “dubium” raised about the apostolic letter, and this response was approved by John Paul II himself. We therefore must reformulate our “dubium”: could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the Sacrament of Orders, which the Church cannot change?
5. Finally, Your Holiness confirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent according to which the validity of sacramental absolution requires the sinner’s repentance, which includes the resolve not to sin again. And You invited us not to doubt God’s infinite mercy. We would like to reiterate that our question does not arise from doubting the greatness of God’s mercy, but, on the contrary, it arises from our awareness that this mercy is so great that we are able to convert to Him, to confess our guilt, and to live as He has taught us. In turn, some might interpret Your answer as meaning that merely approaching confession is a sufficient condition for receiving absolution, inasmuch as it could implicitly include confession of sins and repentance. We would therefore like to rephrase our “dubium”: Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?
Vatican City, August 21, 2023
Walter Card. Brandmüller
Raymond Leo Card. Burke
Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez
Robert Card. Sarah
Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun
A high-profile precedent for this initiative of the five cardinals were the “dubia” presented to Pope Francis in 2016 on five controversial points of “Amoris laetitia,” the concluding document of the synod on the family:
Then as well Francis did not respond. And then as well, after many weeks of silence from the pope, the “dubia” were made public:
On that occasion the cardinals who came out into the open were four. In addition to Brandmüller and Burke, the Italian Carlo Caffarra and the German Joachim Meisner, both of whom passed away in 2017.
magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2023/10/02/the-five-%E2%80%9Cdubia%E2%80%9D-of-five-cardinals-on-key-points-of-the-synod-to-which-the-pope-has-not-replied/
or
archive.ph/h9MRw
