Thoughts about the Amazon Synod (“walking together”) document. Wherein Fr. Z opines also on something sad about #Bookgate

The Exhortation following the ghastly Amazon Synod (“walking together with a demonic idol”) is now out.

No married priests and no deaconettes.

More on the Exhortation below.

First, however, something which you should know about.

Sandro Magister doesn’t often put his foot wrong.  He doesn’t usually fall into the obvious disinformation traps set for those who hunger to be first with the juicy stuff.

So, I read what he wrote about Benedict XVI and Card. Sarah today with real sorrow, reflecting on the viciousness of the left, the papalatrous, the New Red Guards.

I see now that it is translated into English on Sandro’s site HERE

Francis’s Silence, Ratzinger’s Tears, and That Never-Published Statement of His

What is most striking in the post-synodal apostolic exhortation “Querida Amazonia,” made public today, February 12 2020, is its total silence on the most anticipated and controversial issue: the ordination of married men.

Not even the word “celibacy” appears in it. Pope Francis desires “to configure ministry in such a way that it is at the service of a more frequent celebration of the Eucharist, even in the remotest and most isolated communities” (no. 86). But he reiterates (no. 88) that only the ordained priest can celebrate the Eucharist, absolve from sins and administer the anointing of the sick (because it too is “intimately linked to the forgiveness of sins,” footnote 129). And it says nothing about the extension of ordination to “viri probati.”

No news on women’s ministries either. “If they were admitted to Holy Orders,” Francis writes in no. 100, “it would lead us to clericalize women” and to “restrict our understanding of the Church to her functional structures.”

The curiosity that arises immediately, from reading “Querida Amazonia,” is therefore to understand to what extent the bombshell book written by pope emeritus Benedict XVI and by Cardinal Robert Sarah in defense of the celibacy of the clergy, published in mid-January, influenced the exhortation and in particular its silence on the ordination of married men.


Sandro goes on with a postscript. He says he has this from independent sources. He relates four point. Here is the first, and the one that made me so sad. Keep in mind the vicious explosion against both Sarah and Benedict by people like Ivereigh and Beans:


The first occurred on the morning of Wednesday January 15.

All throughout the day of Tuesday the 14th the attack carried out by the radical movements against Ratzinger and Sarah had built up to a devastating crescendo, fueled in fact by the repeated denials of the prefect of the pontifical household, Georg Gänswein, of a co-responsibility of the pope emeritus in the composition and publication of the book, to the point of requesting the withdrawal of his signature, and contrasted to no avail by the precise and documented reconstruction, made public by Sarah, of the genesis of the book itself by the united efforts of its two coauthors.

So then, on the morning of Wednesday January 15, while Pope Francis was holding his weekly general audience with Gänswein sitting as usual at his side in the Paul VI hall, and therefore far from the Mater Ecclesiae monastery which is the residence of the pope emeritus whose secretary he is, Benedict XVI picked up the phone himself and called Sarah first at home, where he did not find him, and then at the office, where the cardinal answered.

Benedict XVI expressed his heartfelt solidarity with Sarah. He confided that he could not understand the reasons for such violent and unjust aggression. And he wept. Sarah wept too. The call ended with both of them in tears.


There are three other issues after this, but this is the one that left my heart heavy.

One of them concerns the sidelining of Archbp. Gänswein, and it is tied to #Bookgate.

Folks, it is hard to know exactly what influence Sarah and Benedict’s book had on the final text of the Post-Synodal Exhortation. Was there material in the document opening up the way to married priests, etc? Was there a campaign of disinformation designed to target certain writers and also to uncover internal leaks? Or, on the other hand, was the leaked information correct? In that case did the book force a revision?

We don’t know these things for certain. Magister has his view. He is pretty well informed. Eventually we will learn more. Why? Because, as the old proverb goes: “Il diavolo fa le pentole, ma non i coperchi”. The Enemy always shows you what he’s cooking.

What have we seen?

We see that the Germans have reacted with dismay about the lack of their pets in the new Amazon document.  HERE  “Unfortunately, [Francis] does not find the courage to implement real reforms in the questions of the ordination of married men and the liturgical skills of women, which have been discussed for 50 years.”

Of course at the German Synod (“Stechschrite miteinander”) girls distribute Communion in the hand to the Bishops.  No, really.  HERE

We see that Beans, one of the most vicious of the bombthrowers, is backing off from his agitprop. Quoted by CNN: “People are starting to adjust their expectations,” said Massimo Faggioli, a church historian at Villanova University in Pennsylvania. “The major reforms they were expecting of him may never come.”

And this bitter fruit…

Yeah… that’s what we need.  More synods (“walking together”).  Let’s talk about walking together while we are walking together.  And then we’ll talk about the fact that we talked and walked.  And then we’ll write about talking and walking and talk about the walking and the writing about the talking, until we’ve written something that we can talk and write about some more!

And Pachamama laughs.

Some are saying something like, “Well, maybe this Exhortation is official teaching and all that stuff, but we are really going to hook our hopes on the final document of the Synod rather than this document from Francis.”  Check out CNA on this.    It’s a little amusing, really.  One of the lefty Cardinals involved in the Amazon Synod (“walking together with Pachamana”) was Michael Card. Czerny.  He tried to spin his disappointment: “The final document, consisting of proposals made and voted by the Synod Fathers, has the weight of a synodal final document” On the other hand, the Exhortation “reflect[s] on the whole process and its final document, has the authority of ordinary magisterium of the Successor of Peter.”  See what he’s doing?  However, during the presser, it was made clear that Francis did NOT make his own the final document of the Synod, as some had expected.  Instead he went this route.  Surprisingly from Baldisseri:

“The apostolic exhortation does not speak of approval of the final document. It does not speak [of it]. It speaks of presentation, but not of approval,” Baldisseri continued. “There is not a clear canonical word of approval, as in article 18 of Episcopalis Communio. It speaks of express approval, not indirect, imagined.”

The final document of the Amazon synod “has a certain moral authority, sure,” he added, “but not magisterial.”

Hence the dismay of Beans and Austen.  And of Antonio 2+2=5 Spadaro.  This tweet:

His babble…

“#QueridaAmazonia accompanies and not not replace the final Document [of the Synod], looking forward that – in searching for solutions – the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to something greater than previously expected.  The synodal process continues… “

Right.  The Holy Spirit.  I think the Holy Spirit moved Paul VI in the matter of Humanae vitae.  Is 2+2=5 saying that Holy Spirit has not yet moved Francis?

Yesterday, Card. Marx said he wasn’t going to stand for headship of the German Bishops Conference again.   Maybe the Holy Spirit moved him.

More puzzle pieces.

Here is something to watch for.

The left is now in a jam.  Their hero, Francis, has shelved the projects they tried to ram through, instrumentalizing the Amazon, using the power of the money of the German bishops and their crazy theologians.  They didn’t get their way.   It seems to me that Francis wanted to go their way, but in the end he backed off.  Why?  Hard to say.  In any event, the papalatrous left now has to decide: back up their hero and hope for the radical overturning of the Church or, stick with him?  How will they navigate this Scylla and Charibdis?  I suspect that, at some point, they will turn even more on Francis, now that they are not getting their way as quickly as they wanted.   They seem to be saying that a future Pope will give them what they want.  But that puts them in a jam too.  They don’t like the fact that there is a “Pope Emeritus”.  But to get the action they want, they need a new Pope.   So, what’s it going to be?

These are puzzle pieces. Slowly a picture might emerge as they fit together. That picture might not be what we would prefer it to be.

This is one of the reasons why, on both the faithful and traditional and conservative side… as well as one the iconoclastic and papalatrous left… we should all be careful about leaks and possible campaigns of disinformation. The risk of getting things wrong isn’t worthy getting to the story FIRST! Truth is more important than clicks.

Lastly, the beginning of that Amazon Synod will forever be tainted by the FACT of veneration of a demonic idol, Pachamama.  Its process and deliberations will forever be tainted by the presence of demonic idols.  Its conclusion will forever be tainted by the placing of a bowl with demonic symbols and purpose on the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica.

It is remarkable, really, that nothing worse came from this.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Francis, Synod and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. HvonBlumenthal says:

    What strikes me is that the Pope thinks the campaign for ordination of women is a form of clericalism.

  2. GregB says:

    The Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost, so after Pentecost God was all in. There are no further Persons of the Trinity to send to propose a radical new Church, or a radical new dispensation. In fact the New Testament contains warnings to hold fast to the faith against impostors.
    I’m of the view that the Holy Spirit is used way too often as a stage prop for acts of spiritual ventriloquism. Makes one wonder if putting words in the Holy Spirit’s mouth is taking the name of God in vain.

  3. rhhenry says:

    With respect to your last point, Father, about the Pachamama, I did find the following in the Apostolic Exhortation to be rather defensive and even defiant:

    “79. It is possible to take up an indigenous symbol in some way, without necessarily considering it as idolatry.”

    [To which I respond… B as in B, S as in S.]

  4. roma247 says:

    It is posts like this that make me always wait to hear how you will process the news on subjects like this one, before forming any opinion…so much here to weigh in the balance. Very much worth the wait. Thank you for what you do, Father.

    …and, as always, prayers for our Pope Emeritus.

    “and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage…” (Exodus 2:23)

  5. Aquinas Gal says:

    I recall that Fr Z had asked everyone to pray the Memorare that weekend right after the synod, (and also other prayers), so we have to thank the Blessed Mother that the document of the Pope did not approve the ordination of “viri probati.” Thank you, Blessed Mother!

  6. abdiesus says:

    1P5 has an important post on the topic here:

    which reminds us that what “isn’t said” in this one place IS still being pushed forward as part of the Official Magesterium – here’s an important excerpt:

    “Article 17 of E.C. [2018], entitled “Delivery of the Final Document to the Roman Pontiff,” is the clincher for our purposes today (emphasis added):

    §1. Once the approval of the members has been obtained, the Final
    Document of the Assembly is presented to the Roman Pontiff, who
    decides on its publication.

    If it is expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff, the Final Document
    *participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter*.

    §2. If the Roman Pontiff has granted deliberative power to the Synod
    Assembly, according to the norm of canon 343 of the Code of Canon
    Law, the Final Document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of
    the Successor of Peter once it has been ratified and promulgated by him.

    In this case, the Final Document is published with the signature
    of the Roman Pontiff together with that of the members.

    In other words, according to the pope’s decree in Episcopalis Communio, the final document of the Amazon Synod “participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the Successor of Peter.”

    And today’s press conference confirms that this is how the final document is viewed by the Vatican.

    In his intervention today, the newly minted Cardinal Michael Czerny, S.J. — who has signaled his own willingness to debate the question of female ordination and the ordination of viri probati — said that “apart from formal magisterial authority, this official presentation and encouragement confer on the Final Document a certain moral authority” (emphasis added).

    Formal magisterial authority.

    They are telling us that the final document of the synod itself is what is really being presented here as magisterial, with all its open-ended questions and suggestions.”

    I think we need to take seriously what is being said in this article, because they aren’t just talking about “viri probati” they are talking about women in Holy Orders.

    Again quoting from 1P5’s article which in turn quotes from Cardinal Czerny:

    “LifeSite: Cardinal Czerny, the Sacrament of Holy Orders
    is one sacrament. The diaconate is a part, an essential part,
    of that sacrament. Can we not rule out that a woman cannot
    be admitted to Holy Orders?

    Cardinal Czerny: It’s under study.

    LifeSite: It’s not under study if a woman can be admitted to
    Holy Orders.

    Cardinal Czerny: The women’s diaconate is under study.

    LifeSite: But not in the sense of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

    Cardinal Czerny: We’ll have to see what the study produces.”

    At some point, and I think we are actually already well past that point, someone is going to have to make a decision about what constitutes valid Magisterium and what is, on the contrary, false or counterfeit Magisterium. Because it is clear even to many lay-folk like myself that many things which have been said since V2 (and perhaps occasionally including V2 itself) are simply, obviously, and starkly contradictory to previous 2000 years of the Magisterium.

    Every new statement by this Pope and his supporters simply confirms that they are doing nothing other than working out the implications of these contradictions which they themselves trace back to V2. It is therefore impossible to avoid dealing with the status of V2 itself when discussing true vs. false Magisterium.

    I’m sure that many readers of this blog may not agree, but I don’t see any way around this, and to deny it is, itself, a way of making a decision on the issue.

    [We may be faced with another situation like Amoris wherein those who have good will will interpret the ambiguity one way, and those who don’t another. And a lot of people who simply don’t know what they don’t know are going to jump in and flap around in the already muddy water. In the presser: “The apostolic exhortation does not speak of approval of the final document. It does not speak [of it]. It speaks of presentation, but not of approval,” Baldisseri continued. “There is not a clear canonical word of approval, as in article 18 of Episcopalis Communio. It speaks of express approval, not indirect, imagined.” The final document of the Amazon synod “has a certain moral authority, sure,” he added, “but not magisterial.” What the heck authority does it have it it doesn’t have magisterial authority? Pretty much ZERO authority, except insofar as its arguments persuade. The already persuaded will lean this way and those who aren’t that way. This is, in itself, a grave problem, because it is exactly the role of the Roman Pontiff to bring clarity to unclear issues, not to produce more confusion. And yet Francis never loses a chance to sow division. Doesn’t he say pretty openly that he wants “a mess” and division? Isn’t one of his points that out of division comes a new course? I’m not sure how that is consistent with the role of Popes, however. He doesn’t seem to care. Remember also what he was telling American bishops – reportedly – during their ad limina visits.]

  7. anna 6 says:

    The G. Gänswein issue is very concerning, because either he is being unfairly treated or he did a disservice to the Pope Emeritus- both terrible situations.
    As an eternal optimist, I wonder if he simply misspoke while trying to protect Benedict from the wolves, and didn’t fully understand the agreement between B16, C. Sarah’s and the publishers. I can’t imagine him hurting Benedict intentionally.
    The Pope Emeritus has endured suffering throughout his ecclesiastical career and continues to do so. But thank God he is still with us.

  8. ArthurH says:

    Mary has appeared to us in many ways–even to being a pregnant Indian woman to St Juan Diego. We call her “the Mother of God,” which she indeed is, and there is no end to the possibilities of how we can and should pay our respect to her n prayer.

    Having said that– and remembering the scandal of Pachamama before the synod– might the wording of the closing prayer in PF’s exhortation seem to make our Blessed Mother a bit too Pacahamama-like? Here is that prayer–note esp paragraphs 1 and 2– copied below:


    Faced with the marvel of the Amazon region, which we discovered ever more fully during the preparation and celebration of the Synod, I consider it best to conclude this Exhortation by turning to her:

    Mother of life,
    in your maternal womb Jesus took flesh,
    the Lord of all that exists.
    Risen, he transfigured you by his light
    and made you the Queen of all creation.
    For that reason, we ask you, Mary, to reign
    in the beating heart of Amazonia.

    Show yourself the Mother of all creatures,
    in the beauty of the flowers, the rivers,
    the great river that courses through it
    and all the life pulsing in its forests.
    Tenderly care for this explosion of beauty.

    Ask Jesus to pour out all his love
    on the men and women who dwell there,
    that they may know how to appreciate and care for it.

    Bring your Son to birth in their hearts,
    so that he can shine forth in the Amazon region,
    in its peoples and in its cultures,
    by the light of his word,
    by his consoling love,
    by his message of fraternity and justice.

    And at every Eucharist,
    may all this awe and wonder be lifted up
    to the glory of the Father.

    Mother, look upon the poor of the Amazon region,
    for their home is being destroyed by petty interests.
    How much pain and misery,
    how much neglect and abuse there is
    in this blessed land
    overflowing with life!

    Touch the hearts of the powerful,
    for, even though we sense that the hour is late,
    you call us to save
    what is still alive.

    Mother whose heart is pierced,
    who yourself suffer in your mistreated sons and daughters,
    and in the wounds inflicted on nature,
    reign in the Amazon,
    together with your Son.
    Reign so that no one else can claim lordship
    over the handiwork of God.

    We trust in you, Mother of life.
    Do not abandon us
    in this dark hour.


  9. Mary-Kathleen says:

    This blog agrees with 1Peter5:


  10. acardnal says:

    Next agenda item will be Massimo and Spadaro suggesting Jeff Bezos for bishop of the region!

  11. acardnal says:

    Next agenda item will be Massimo and Spadaro suggesting Jeff Bezos for bishop of the region!

  12. Kathleen10 says:

    I just read about maybe, half of the exhortation. I’m going to be brief so I don’t say too much.
    What on earth is this man yammering about the Amazon for. He is obsessed with the Amazon, but doesn’t notice the suffering of the people of Nigeria?? He doesn’t notice that those people aren’t even able to merely LIVE. I don’t think the people of the Amazon, even the precious indigenous people, are being hacked to death almost daily, or raped or burned in fires, as a pregnant woman and a baby recently were, or are seeing whole wedding parties massacred. Someone please correct me, are these not accurate statements? But he goes on and on about the Amazon and the trees and the water, but he cares NOTHING, for living, breathing human beings who are being killed daily by Muslims in Nigeria. Why does he not care for the suffering people of Nigeria! Or for that matter, China, which suffering he has increased because of the evil, reprehensible deal with the Chicoms. Now the Catholics of China must endure great persecution. God in heaven.
    Ok, that’s me holding back. I’ll stop now, except to say, the final document is the thing to watch for, but if not then, soon. But maybe our angst was sufficient, for a while.

  13. Kerry says:

    ” It is possible to take up an indigenous symbol in some way…”
    Really? Really? As in “Political correctness – A doctrine, fostered by a delusional…”, where in picking up something is mentioned.

  14. Hidden One says:

    It gives me true sorrow that the Pope Emeritus, the greatest living theologian in the world and indubitably a holy man, has suffered such for his essay in defense of clerical celibacy. I am pained the more that the Pope Emeritus now finds so many people within the Church in so much need of unsought graces, more than even he had hitherto been aware of.

    But this comment exists because of the following questions:

    Regarding Magister’s article, am I to understand that Cardinal Parolin supported Cantagalli’s strong endorsement of the Controversial Book?

    If so, am I to understand that his support was likely given after he was aware of the final draft of Querida Amazonia, which does not abolish clerical celibacy?

    What does all this mean for the view(s) of Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin regarding the Pope Emeritus?

    At any rate, I hope the unpublished statement from the Pope Emeritus eventually sees the light of day.

  15. FN says:

    @GregB: Doesn’t Our Lord say that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the sin that can never be forgiven?

  16. Gaetano says:

    God answered the faithful who offered prayers and fasting to preserve the Synod from manifest error. Non nobis, Domine.

  17. mbarry says:

    When warriors attacked a fort, it took more than one bash of the battering ram to damage the front doors.

    This time the door held. What I fear is the next pope. He will be elected by many of the cardinals that Pope Francis has created. I think the deck is stacked to elect a pope that could make Pope Francis look like a traditionalist in comparison.

  18. Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  19. JabbaPapa says:

    Paragraph 74 appears to be in direct violation of the anathemata pronounced by the First Vatican Council against the Heresy of Pantheism :

    First Vatican Council :

    1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.

    2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.

    3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.

    4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.

    5. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

  20. Gab says:

    Sadly the Pope has not closed the door to married men for priesthood, or female ordinations, with the door being left open for “future discussions’. *sigh*.

  21. Mr. Graves says:

    Aquinas Gal and Gaetano:

    My thoughts exactly. Our family offered rosary intentions when Fr. Richard Heilman requested them during his rosary novena crusade at the end of last year. (His specific intention was for the Amazon Synod exhortation.) IMHO, Benedict’s and Cdl. Sarah’s book — and its timing — was a direct answer from God to the prayers and fastings of the faithful.

    I believe these prelates and their (very few) peers who stand up for the True Faith against the crowd of modernist cowards are some of the white martyrs of our age. God protect them and make them blessed in this life and the next.

  22. Johann says:

    I feel like a martini, distilled with leftist tears.

  23. Ages says:

    Good outcome, but it’s still pretty sad we live in a day where people have to celebrate a Pope upholding Catholic tradition.

    Speaking of “indigenous symbols,” let’s not forget that bread is virtually unknown in various parts of the world. The equivalent in parts of South America is the sweet potato. Shall we translate it “I am the sweet potato of life” and use sweet potatoes for the eucharist in these places—because, as liberals would surely tell us, these primitive people are too simple to understand such things, so they must be condescended to?

  24. Kirk says:

    one huge reason I came back to the Church was that I read Humanae vitae. The very fact that St Paul VI over came the pressures of this world and probably his own beliefs to standup and not allow contraception is proof the Holy Spirt guides the Church through her popes. the same seems to have happened here. The problem is that it also seems that the bad priests and bishops will try and slide it in anyway.

  25. Priam1184 says:

    I think we have a problem here and it goes like this: certain people on the internet have driven a large portion of what remains of the Catholic population that wishes to remain faithful into a mad distrust of the current Holy Father, Francis, twice in the last five years. Remember the Synod on the Family: that was supposed to conclude with some sort of papal declaration authorizing Communion for the civilly divorced and remarried. Didn’t happen. This time we were promised just about everything from married priests to women deacons saying Mass in Amazonian tribal dress. Not even close. Not even in the same universe.
    And I think that a large part of the problem is that we spend a whole lot more time listening to people like Sandro Magister and Edward Pentin than we do listening to the Holy Father himself. This is not healthy. Because another Synod will come and the forces in the world who are not friendly to the Church will try once again to drive us into another frenzy of wasted energy. One last point: if you don’t like Pope Francis but do like Cardinal Robert Sarah then you should remember who appointed him to his current position, and it wasn’t Pope Benedict…

    [It was not Benedict. True. Francis moved the Cardinal from a post at a Council which was to cease over to a Congregation that governs something he clearly has no interest in. Then he made sure that most of the officials in Sarah’s Congregation who who were of Benedict’s view lost their positions and replaced with others, thus isolating him.]

  26. Hidden One says:


    I do not find in para. 74 affirmations of anything condemned in the portion of Vatican I that you quoted. To that end, the contents of footnote 105 are worth noting, as it indicates quite clearly (I think) that Pope Francis’ meaning in 74 is quite different from what is condemned.

  27. Priam1184 says:

    Father I must respectfully disagree with you on one point: you seemed to say that Pope Francis has no interest in the Sacred Liturgy but did you watch the opening Mass of the Amazon Synod last October that he offered? I was expecting, given everything I had been hearing in the leadup to the Synod, a Mass offered in Spanish which is both his native language and a the lingua franca of at least a portion of the Amazon along with a bunch of singing and dancing and hip shaking dancers in native Amazonian dress dancing around the altar. But it wasn’t like that at all. He offered the entire Mass in Latin and all the hymns were in Latin and sung very solemnly. That was the first sign to me that things weren’t going to go quite like what we had been told. [It wasn’t, in fact, a Mass for people in the Amazon. It was a Mass for the opening of a meeting of the Synod of Bishops, and therefore with bishops from all over the world, not just from the Amazon.]

    And as for personnel assignments in the Congregation for Divine Worship I don’t know. [I do.] A sacrilegious ideology has had a death grip on so many of the functionaries who exercise the real control over the Church’s liturgical life for so long now it’s hard to say who is responsible anymore. I never have had access to the Extraordinary Form where I live and the Mass isn’t offered any worse at my parish now than it was when Benedict XVI was pope, but wasn’t all that great then either…

  28. chantgirl says:

    It took two synods on the family to get communion-for-adulterers snuck in through a back door.

    Now this:

    I doubt we have seen the last of the viri probati and deaconnettes push.

  29. chantgirl says:

    Also, Benedict must be suffering more than we can guess.

  30. Pingback: Canon212 Update: Who’s Worse: Sneaky, Sneaky Francis or His Backstabbing Enablers? – The Stumbling Block

  31. JabbaPapa says:

    Hidden One, “the Son of God has incorporated in his person part of the material world” is clearly pantheistic, and “He is present in a glorious and mysterious way in the river, the trees, the fish and the wind” directly violates the anathema against the teaching that certain creatures are somehow parts of God, for all creatures are created by God in their whole substance out of nothing (transformative material processes within reality notwithstanding).

    The attempt in paragraph 74 to provide divine attributes to certain creatures within material Creation is obviously pagan, obviously contrary to orthodox cosmology, obviously pantheistic, and obviously heretical. And the Heresy in question was formally condemned by Vatican I.

    As to footnote 105, that “quote” is very strange, as the only place where those words are to be found is in the exhortation itself — whether you check those words in English, the original Spanish, or the Italian. So that I find it untrustworthy, and to be at least materially unreliable.

    Colossians II,2 has nothing about rivers, trees, fish, and wind being somehow parts of God :

    {2:2} May their hearts be consoled and instructed in charity, with all the riches of a plenitude of understanding, with knowledge of the mystery of God the Father and of Christ Jesus.

    But instead :

    {2:8} See to it that no one deceives you through philosophy and empty falsehoods, as found in the traditions of men, in accord with the influences of the world, and not in accord with Christ.

    As for the actual commentary of Aquinas on Colossians, :

    84. – Thus he says: I say that in Christ there is all knowledge. And I say this so that you will not be deceived in seeking for knowledge from anywhere else. And he says, I say this in order that no one, that is, neither Demosthenes or Cicero, may delude you with beguiling speech. “You will see no more the insolent people, the people of an obscure speech which you cannot comprehend, stammering in a tongue which you cannot understand” (Is 33:19).

    And in his own 2-2 :

    86. – Above, he warned them against falling away from the faith as a result of some deceptive language

    90. – Then (v. 8), he warns them not to be deceived by an empty wisdom.

    91. – A person can be deceived by worldly wisdom in two ways, that is, sometimes by the real principles of philosophy, and sometimes by fallacious arguments. And Paul teaches them to beware of both: See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy, that is, by philosophical teachings: “Your wisdom and your knowledge led you astray” (Is 47:10). For there are many who have turned from the faith after having been deceived by philosophy: “Man has become foolish in his knowledge” (Jer. 10:14). As regards to the second way to be deceived he says, and empty deceit, which is based on the way words are used: “Let no one deceive you with empty words,” as is said in Ephesians (5:6).

    92. – But how are they being deceived? One who deceives another must have something which seems reasonable, and something which is not really so. So first Paul shows the basis of this seeming reasonableness. It is based on two things, the first being the authority of the philosophers. And about this he says, according to human tradition, that is, according to what is handed down by some, basing themselves on their own judgment: “The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath” (Ps 94:11). The second source of an apparent reasonableness are the contrivances of reason, that is, when a person wishes to measure or judge about the things of faith according to the principles of things, and not by divine wisdom. And many are deceived in this way. And so Paul says, they should not be deceived by those judging according to the elements of the universe, and not according to Christ: “They were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists” (Wis 13:1). Now the higher a cause is, the more superior is its effect. And so those who wish to investigate certain effects in terms of causes that are inferior are deceived. For example, if one were to consider the movement of water in terms of the power of water, he would not be able to know the cause of the tides of the sea; to do this he would have to consider water in terms of the power of the moon. Thus, those people are even more deceived who consider the proper effects of God in terms of the elements of the world. And this is the reason for the seeming plausibility of what they say.

    [93. –] 94. – Or, we could say that according to the elements of the universe means, by measuring the truth of faith according to the truth of creatures. Or perhaps Paul said this referring to the idolaters who were worshiping idols and saying that Jupiter was the heavens. Or, Paul was referring to the Jewish people, and then the text is understood this way: by philosophy, by the reasoning of those who were trying to convince them to observe the ceremonies of the law, and these, according to the elements of the universe or world, that is, according to the bodily observances: “We were slaves to the elements of the world” (Gal 4:3). But our first explanation is better.

    95. – Then when he says, for in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, he gives the reason for what he has just stated, saying that whatever is not according to Christ should be rejected. But is Christ so good that all things should be rejected for him? He answers that he is, and shows it in three ways: first, by considering his divinity; secondly, by his relationship to those who believe (v. 10a); and thirdly, by his relationship to the angels (v. 10b).

    96. – So he says: Whatever is contrary to Christ must be rejected, because he is God. Thus we must prefer him to everything else, for in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily. Now God is in all things. He is in some things because they participate in a likeness to his goodness, as a stone and things like that. Such things are not God, but they have in themselves something of God; not his substance, but a likeness of his goodness. Consequently, the fullness of divinity does not dwell in them, because he is not there according to his substance. Again, he is in holy minds by an activity, minds which attain God by love and knowledge; and thus God is in them by grace, not bodily, but according to the effect of grace. And he is not there in his fullness, but only by some limited effects. But God is present in Christ bodily; and this is explained in three ways.

    98. – Nestorius was mistaken on this point: he said that this union was brought about entirely by an indwelling, the Word dwelling in the flesh. But the Apostle does not agree with this, for he says in Philippians (2:7): “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” Now when one dwells in a man he does not empty himself; one empties oneself by becoming man. And so Paul continues, “being born in the likeness of man.” And so Christ is indwelt, but not in the sense that the one indwelling and the one dwelt in are distinct, but in the sense that Christ is both man and God, in whom dwells the fullness of the deity.

    The footnote in other words is attributing to Aquinas some words and some notions that not only are not to be found in his writing, except through false interpretation (I cannot see in Aquinas anything about a “Risen Lord who permeates all things“, instead he overtly condemns understanding Christ according to worldly things), but worse, to propose that a teaching directly contradicting Aquinas and the Scripture can somehow be based upon his theology.

    Instead :

    139. – Furthermore, we should judge of other things in the light of Christ; and so Paul says, set your mind on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. Here he is affirming one way of life, and rejecting another. A person sets his mind on things that are above, when he governs his life according to heavenly ideas, and judges all things by such ideas: “The wisdom from above” (Jas. 3:17). And a person sets his mind on things that are on earth when he orders and judges all things according to earthly goods, considering them the highest goods: “They glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things” (Phil 3:19).

    The Pachamama is in no way whatsoever justified in theology from the commentary of Aquinas on Colossians, and nor are any “Amazonian” doctrines drawn from that false pagan cult.

  32. GregB says:

    Today’s (Feb. 13, 2020) Reading 1 (1 Kings 11:4-13) is about Solomon’s turn to idol worship. It compares the divided heart of Solomon with the undivided heart of his father David. Interesting timing, in light of Pachamama and the release of the Exhortation.

  33. Semper Gumby says:

    “They didn’t get their way. It seems to me that Francis wanted to go their way, but in the end he backed off.”

    “These are puzzle pieces. Slowly a picture might emerge as they fit together. That picture might not be what we would prefer it to be.

    “This is one of the reasons why, on both the faithful and traditional and conservative side… as well as one the iconoclastic and papalatrous left… we should all be careful about leaks and possible campaigns of disinformation.”

    “Lastly, the beginning of that Amazon Synod will forever be tainted by the FACT of veneration of a demonic idol, Pachamama. Its process and deliberations will forever be tainted by the presence of demonic idols. Its conclusion will forever be tainted by the placing of a bowl with demonic symbols and purpose on the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica.”

    Great points Fr. Z.

    God bless Card. Sarah, Benedict XVI, and the faithful Resistance.

  34. Pingback: Francis' Nightmares for the Church: Analysis of Querida Amazonia - Catholic Family News

Comments are closed.