Folks, I’m aware there will be a lot to read in the upcoming three months about the Synod on the Family in October. I am wary of overdoing it on the blog. I don’t want synod-fatigue to set in.
That said…
… when I saw an article by Alberto Melloni in today’s edition of Italy’s Corriere della Sera HERE I just couldn’t resist writing.
Melloni is a church historian highly regarded in liberal circles especially for his work on Vatican II to which he applies a hermeneutic of discontinuity by arguing that the Council was a significant break with the previous tradition. But I digress.
When the Five Cardinals’ BookTM was announced on 17 September 2014 in the pages of Corriere, an article by Melloni appeared alongside the report denouncing the book as an attack on Pope Francis and Vatican II! Melloni is a strong, vocal supporter of Cardinal Kasper’s argument in favor of sacramental Communion for divorced, remarried Catholics.
Today, Melloni, along with Giovanni Cereti (coincidence? I think not!), advanced an interpretation of Pope Francis’ Wednesday audience address as a strong endorsement of the Kasper proposal.
I wrote HERE that such interpretations would be published and why they are exaggerated. We simply don’t know what Pope Francis thinks today about the Kasper proposal, as even John Allen admits HERE.
Cereti’s appearance in Corriere occurred just days after he was interviewed by Vatican Radio HERE. Cereti is the theologian whom Kasper relied upon for his treatment of the alledged early Church practice of “tolerating but not accepting” second marriages after divorce. Writing in the Five Cardinals’ Book, John Rist, reviewing the earlier scholarship of Jesuit Fr. Henri Crouzel, demolished Cereti’s arguments one-by-one. Most noteworthy was Rist’s/Crouzel’s analysis of Canon 8 of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea (AD 325).
Cereti argues that the Council condemned those who excommunicate divorced and remarried Christians. His argument depends upon an interpretation of the Greek term digamoi. The word can refer to second marriages following divorce, but most often in that period it referred to second marriages of widows/ers. In order to decide the meaning of the term in Canon 8 reference has to be made to a 4th century work, the Panarion, by Epiphanius. Crouzel has shown (and Rist has confirmed) on philological and historical grounds that the only logical interpretation of digamoi in Canon 8 is to those who are remarried after the death of their spouse, and not after a divorce.
As Rist makes clear in the Five Cardinals’ Book, Cereti has never rebutted Crouzel’s argument.
But Vatican Radio obviously feels NO OBLIGATION to report the pertinent criticisms of Cereti in the Five Cardinals’ Book.
Vatican Radio is shilling for Kasper in the finest tradition of Vatican openness and fairness.
I couldn’t let that pass without comment.
Click to buy
Loading ...
I would imagine so, but does “digamoi “also cover spouses presumed dead after a certain number of years’ absence
with no word, such as after attacks, never returning from a trip (brigands?) and many similar circumstances.Unreliable post , no phones or fax, in the case of cristians intermittent persecutions, no habeas corpus…..
The seven years absence to presume death later adopted in cristendom was at the church’s suggestion or from the Roman law code? Where was the early church on this , if known ?
Hard cases make bad law, Greek legend is the more cutting in that hubby one can indeed turn up to find , let alone suitors, hubby two installed. In God’s sight, then who is and what is …?
I haven’t seen this red herring yet , I would expect to have by now.
Sighted at Rorate Caeli this afternoon in a commentary on the Germans:
“The Bishop of Leiria–Fátima, António Marto, has now professed himself to be a follower of Kasper.”
This speaks volumes. Tragically ironic.
What more need be said.
I’m one terrified new Catholic.
On a positive note, I’m finding myself praying more often. A lot more often.
@Benedict Joseph,
That definitely is tragically ironic, but on the positive side, the Portuguese Bishops voted against communion for the remarried. Also, Bp Marto is not a representative to the Synod, while Cardinal Clemente (who argued against Kasper) is a Synod rep.
Just two months until the Synod, Father. Zero hour is October 5. We’re almost there.
“We simply don’t know what Pope Francis thinks today about the Kasper proposal…”
And that’s everything in a nutshell right there. We’re trying to figure out where OUR OWN POPE stands on all of these divisive, major issues and both sides are rummaging through the word salads of his interviews and writings looking for succor. The pope is supposed to protect the deposit of faith and be absolutely clear about it. That’s not happening.
The Holy Father has done the Church a favor by allowing this debate to proceed out in the open, so that the light of day (and the Light of Christ) will shine upon it. When this is all over, we will know who are the true Catholics, and who are the heretics in our midst. We must remember that the Lord promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church.
Synod -fatigue is a danger. I think it will not, however, dampen the efforts of the liberal/Realtivists.
You say we just don’t know what Pope Francis (or Vatican Radio) thinks about Kasper. You are not the only one. The question, “what in Heavens name is going on” has been asked by me and so many loyal Catholics, not to mention why this second session , or the first for that matter, has been allowed.
One thing is clear. The Teaching on the indissolubility of Marriage, the mortal sinfulness of sex outside of a valid marriage between a man and a woman before separated by death, is part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church as expressed in the Magisterium and cannot be altered – by anyone.
“We simply don’t know what Pope Francis thinks today about the Kasper proposal…”
Well, according to Kasper himself in the Raymond Arroyo interview in June, the Pope does not share his view. I listened to the whole interview, and Arroyo asks this two, if not three times. Here is the last time, and he was rather emphatic (in a regretful sort of way):
ARROYO: Well you did say, and the quote is: “Clearly this is what he wants,” and the Pope has approved of my proposal. Those were the quotes from the time …
CARDINAL KASPER: No … he did not approve my proposal. The Pope wanted that I put the question [forward], and, afterwards, in a general way, before all the cardinals, he expressed his satisfaction with my talk. But not the end, not in the … I wouldn’t say he approved the proposal, no, no, no.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-kasper-back-pedals-on-papal-endorsement-of-controversial-proposal/#ixzz3i9cZfu97
“he was rather emphatic (in a regretful sort of way):”
By that, I meant Card. Kasper was regretfully emphatic – like he was being compelled to admit to something which he didn’t like, but knew to be true.
Which of the following is true:
If the Synod voted for communion for adulterers, sodomites and non-Catholics, but the Holy Father refused their advice, He would remain Catholic, but they would not?
If the Synod voted for communion for adulterers, sodomites and non-Catholics, and the Holy Father confirmed their decision by officially promulgating it, we would be without a Pope?
If the Synod voted against communion for adulterers, sodomites and non-Catholics, but the Pope used his authority to promulgate it, we would be without a Pope?
If the Synod received a special visitation from Our Lady of Medjugorje, all would be well?