Roberto de Mattei
Correspondenza Romana
September 26, 2018
The impressive rapidity
with which events are unfolding one after the other in the Church makes one
think that this is due not only to the dynamics of historical acceleration, but
a deliberate choice by the agents of chaos to increase disorientation and
paralyze the forces that are seeking to resist the rush of the tide.
On September 22, The Holy See and the People’s
Republic of China, in a joint statement, disclosed they had signed a “provisional” agreement on
the procedure for appointing Chinese Catholic bishops. The text however has not
been released and the content is unknown.
The emeritus Bishop of Hong Kong, Cardinal Joseph Zen, provided Asia
News with the following statement:
“The long-awaited press release from the Holy
See is a masterpiece of creativity in saying nothing in many words. It says
that the agreement is provisional, without saying how long it will be valid; it
says that it provides periodic reviews without saying when the first deadline
will be. After all, any agreement can be considered provisional since one of
the two parties can always ask for a change or even the cancellation of the
agreement. But the important thing is that if nobody asks to change or cancel
the agreement, this, even if provisional, remains in place. The word
"provisional" says nothing. "The agreement is about the
appointment of bishops". The Holy See has said that many times for a long
time. So, what is the result of all this work? What is the answer to our long
wait? Nothing is said! Is it secret? The whole statement boils down to
"There was the signing of an agreement between the Holy See and the People's
Republic of China on the appointment of Bishops". All the rest are
meaningless words. So, what is the message the Holy See intends to send to the
faithful in China with this statement? "Have faith in us, accept what we
have decided"(?) And what will the government say to Catholics in China?
"Obey us, the Holy See already agrees with us"(?) Are we to accept
and obey without knowing what must be accepted, to what one must obey?”
The substance of the agreement
should be this: the candidates for the episcopate are chosen by the official
Chinese Church, which is controlled by the Patriotic Association, a direct emanation
of the Communist Party. The Chinese offices will propose to the Holy See a
candidate agreeable to the Communist Party. But what will happen if the Pope is
perhaps not in agreement? In Asia News of September 24th, Father
Bernardo Cervellera, comments on this hypothesis with the following: “Until now
there was talk of the Pope’s power of provisional veto, that is, he had to give
the reasons for his refusal within three months, but if the government judged
the papal reasons inconsistent, he would have continued with the appointment
and ordination of his candidate. Not having the text of the agreement, we don’t
know whether this clause has been kept, whether indeed the Pope will have the
last word on the appointments and the ordinations, or whether his authority will
be recognized solely in a formal way.”
In the event that the veto was
provisional and the Chinese government had the last say, we would fall into grave
error, condemned by the Church. Pius VII,
for instance, repudiated the Concordat of Fontainebleau stipulated with Napoleon
on January 25th 1813, precisely because it foresaw, that, if within
six months the papal ratification hadn’t been reached, the French Empire’s
candidate would have been confirmed by the Episcopal authority. But even in the
event that the veto was permanent, the role of the Pope was, anyway, reduced to
that of a mere notary. He would be restricted
to ratifying the appointment and if he
wanted to avoid the iron-fist of the political authorities with whom he had spasmodically
sought an agreement, the “veto” would represent an exception, certainly not the
rule. In any case, we find ourselves faced with a repetition of Paul VI’s Ostpolitik, which caused a great deal
of harm to Catholics of Eastern European countries.
There is unfortunately a close consistency between the ruinous agreement
with China and the Apostolic Constitution, Episcopalis
communio, on the structure of the Synod of Bishops, signed by Pope Francis
on September 15th and published on the 18th. With this document, explains Stefania Falasca
in Avvenire on September 18, “the
practice of ‘synodality’ is rendered normatively stable as a form of the
Church’s journey and with it, the
principle that regulates the phases of this process: listening, the People of
God, the College of Bishops, the Bishop of Rome: each listening to the other
and all of them listening to the Holy Spirit.”
In
which way is this process of charismatic listening concluded? Articles 17 and
18 of the Apostolic Constitution explain it. The conclusions of the Assembly
are gathered into a final Document, which, after being approved by a special
commission, “is offered to the Roman
Pontiff, who decides on its publication. If expressly approved by the Roman Pontiff, the final
Document participates in the ordinary
Magisterium of the Successor of Peter (art 18, § 2). If then the Roman Pontiff
grants deliberative power to the Synod Assembly, according to the norms of
Canon Law 343, the final Document participates in the ordinary Magisterium of
the Successor of Peter once he has ratified and promulgated it. In this case
the final Document is published with the Roman Pontiff’s signature along with
those of the Members (18, § 3)”.
The
synodal Document, in any case, “participates in the ordinary Magisterium of the
Successor of Peter”. The magisterial significance of the documents like Amoris laetitia and the conclusions of
the upcoming youth and Pan-Amazon synods, are confirmed. But what is the role
of Peter in the elaboration of synod documents?
It is, as in the case of the appointment of Chinese bishops, as a mere
notary, whose signature is necessary for the implementing of the act, without
him as author of the contents of this act.
The
Church is preparing to become a Republic, not a presidential, one but a
parliamentary one, wherein the Head of State has a mere role as guarantor of
the political parties and the representative of national unity, renouncing the
mission of absolute monarch and supreme legislator as the Roman Pontiff. To
accomplish this “democratic” project, the Successor of Peter uses, however,
dictatorial power, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the tradition of
governing the Church.
During a press conference for the presentation of the papal document,
Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops,
affirmed that: “Pope Francis’s Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis communio marks a true and proper ‘re-foundation’ of the
synodal organism” and that “in a synodal Church, even the exercise of the
Petrine Primacy will be able to receive greater light. The Pope is not, alone,
above the Church; but is a Baptized among the Baptized within Her; and within
the College of Bishops as Bishop among the Bishops - at the same time – Successor of the Apostle Peter - leading the Church of Rome which presides with
love over all the other Churches”. (Vatican
Insider, September 18, 2018).
May orthodox theologians evaluate the gravity of these statements that
claim ‘to re-found’ and ‘reform’ the munus
Petrinum. Never as at this present
moment has the Roman Primacy been so denied and disfigured, particularly at a time
when a wave of filth seems to be submerging the Bride of Christ. Those who truly love the Papacy would
have the duty to shout this from the roof-tops.
Yet it seems the silent treatment doesn’t only pertain to Pope Francis.
Even the bishops and cardinals who lead the Church, confronted with the
scandals and errors that are battering Her, seem to be repeating: “I will not
say a single word about this.”
Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana
