After extolling “synodality” as the preeminent fruit of last October’s synod of bishops, and after promising since 2013 more autonomy and powers for the episcopal conferences, including some “authentic doctrinal authority,” Pope Francis dismembered the agenda of the plenary assembly of one of the biggest episcopates in the world, that of the United States, which today concluded its meeting in Baltimore.

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 

15 nov 18

Synodality Up in Smoke. Exercises of Pontifical Monarchy in the United States and China

Francesco

*

Anything but a synodal Church. After extolling “synodality” as the preeminent fruit of last October’s synod of bishops, and after promising since 2013 more autonomy and powers for the episcopal conferences, including some “authentic doctrinal authority,” Pope Francis has dismembered the agenda of the plenary assembly of one of the biggest episcopates in the world, that of the United States, which has been meeting in Baltimore since Monday, November 12.

And at the same time he has abandoned to themselves, in China, those bishops who are not part of the secret accord signed at the end of September between the Holy See and the authorities of Beijing, meaning the thirty or so bishops called “underground” or clandestine who resist undaunted the regime’s despotism over the Church.

At the Vatican they deny that this is the pope’s intention. But that the clandestine Chinese bishops feel he has abandoned them is a real fact, which Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun took pains to express in an impassioned letter-appealwhich he personally put into Francis’s hands one morning at the beginning of November.

*

In effect, with the bishops of the United States Francis has acted like an absolute monarch. On Saturday, November 10 he received in audience in Rome Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the congregation for bishops, and the nuncio in the United States, Christophe Pierre, and tasked the former with communicating to the president of the American bishops, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, a ban on voting on two crucial points of the assembly’s agenda, both of them concerning the scandal of sexual abuse: new “standards of accountability” for the bishops and the creation of a lay body to investigate bishops under accusation.

In his dejected announcement of the twofold ban, Cardinal DiNardo explained that Francis demands that the American bishops not go beyond what canon law already prescribes in the matter, and above all that they not preempt what will be decided in Rome by all the presidents of the episcopal conferences of the world, convened by the pope for February 21-24.

Francis’s “diktat” prompted strongly negative reactions in the United States, even in those who tried to find reasons for it.

In the case of the Chinese bishops, conversely, what hits home is the staggering silence that accompanies their “via crucis,” on the part of the highest authorities of the Church. A silence that is not only public, which could be justified by demands of a prudential character, but also devoid of any act of fellowship and support carried out by private means. Moreover, enveloped in the no less deafening silence of much of the Catholic media, especially that which is closest to Pope Francis.

This is what has been decried by Fr. Bernardo Cervellera of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions, director of the agency “Asia News,” in the editorial reproduced below, which takes its cue from yet another arrest made in recent days, of one of the bishops who has been the most heroic in refusing to submit to the Chinese communist regime.

*

Shame over Msgr. Shao Zhumin, the bishop kidnapped by police

by Bernardo Cervellera

We had expected it. The news of the umpteenth arrest – the fifth in two years – of Msgr. Shao Zhuyin, bishop of Wenzhou, has passed in silence. With the exception of some Spanish and English media, and some rare Italian websites besides AsiaNews, it seems that dragging a bishop, well known in China as a courageous and honorable man, to submit him to dozens of days of indoctrination as in the times of the Cultural Revolution, it is not a news worthy of note, or rather is a nuisance, which is worth silencing.

I wonder what would happen if a good Italian bishop, for example the kindly Msgr. Matteo Zuppi from Bologna, were kidnapped by a group of Islamic fundamentalists to indoctrinate him and make him Muslim, of course: without a hair on his head being touched, as is the case for Msgr. Shao. I imagine that it would make global headlines. In the case of the bishop of Wenzhou it is not a question of Islamic fundamentalists, but of “independence” fundamentalists: they want to convince the bishop that membership of the Patriotic Association, which wants to build a Church that is “independent” from the Holy See, is good for him, for the Church and for the world.

From the point of view of dogma, what Benedict XVI said in the Letter to Chinese Catholics is still true: the status of the PA is “incompatible with Catholic doctrine”. And several times in the past, Pope Francis has stated that Benedict XVI’s Letter “is still valid”.

Thus membership of the PA limits the life of a bishop: Surveillance 24 hours a day; checks and requests for permits for pastoral visits and for meeting guests; requisition for weeks and months to participate in indoctrination conventions on the goodness of Beijing’s religious policy.

I believe that the media silence – especially the Catholic media – is above all born from shame. A few months ago, on September 22nd, their acclaim of the agreement between China and the Holy See had been such it gave the impression that from now on everything would be downhill. Instead, the fact that the problem of persecution persists in the Church in China is such a heavy knockback that – and it is understandable – it is difficult to confess.

If we then add the closed and sealed churches, the destroyed crosses, the domes razed to the ground, the demolished sanctuaries, the police enforced ban on  minors under 18 years attending church or catechism, we then realize that the agreement on the appointment of bishops – as we have said in the past – is good because it avoids the rise of schismatic bishops, but leaves intact a situation in which the PA and the United Front believe themselves to be the true leaders of the Catholic Church in China (and not the Pope). This is confirmed by the lessons that the two bodies are carrying out in many regions of China, in which priests and bishops reiterate that “despite the Sino-Vatican agreement”, the Church must continue to be “independent” (from the Pope and the Holy See).

Unfortunately, the unpublished and secret “provisional” agreement gives China free reign to interpretation. The United Front and the PA force priestsand bishops to join the “independent” Church, saying that “the Pope agrees with us”, so much so that several underground Catholics bitterly suspect that the Vatican has abandoned them in the blizzard.

Some of the so-called “experts” on China, minimalize the facts of persecution, saying that it only happens in “a few places”. In reality there are persecutions in many regions: Hebei, Henan, Zhejiang, Shanxi, Guizhou, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Hubei… And certainly there will be other places where the news has failed to come to light.

Another “reduction” is to say that these things happen in the peripheries, but in the center, in Beijing, we really want the agreement to work. The fact remains that since last October, after the Communist Party Congress, the United Front and the PA are under the direct control of the Party: it is virtually impossible that the center (Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Party) does not know what is happening in the peripheries, with such striking cases that even shake the international community.

In addition to shame, I believe that there are two other reasons push to silence.

The first is a kind of “papolatry complex”: since Pope Francis is a supporter of the agreement with China and a courageous advocate of dialogue with Chinese culture, it seems that highlighting the persecutions is an offense to the Pontiff. Apart from the fact that Pope Francis has always emphasized that he loves sincerity and not adulation, he has always said that dialogue is between two identities, not silencing your own identity  and if your identity is made of martyrs, this cannot be hidden. […]

The second reason could mainly concern the so-called “secular” media, for a “marketolatry” complex, the divinization of the Chinese market. It is silent on persecution and arrests because they are deemed “insignificant” compared to trade war between China and the US and the future of the superpower of the Middle Empire. The media and bookstores are full of articles and books that hail Beijing, or demean it, depending on whether you are destined for China or the United States. In this case, the religious freedom of a country is not understood as a sign of its “goodness”.  Last November 5, meeting the World Congress of Mountain Jews, Pope Francis said that “religious freedom is a supreme good to protect, a fundamental human right, a bulwark against the totalitarian demands”. Therefore, those who really want freedom of trade in China should primarily defend religious freedom. Large Chinese entrepreneurs who, even if they want to trade and invest abroad, must obey the central government restrictions, know something of this. Bishop Shao Zhumin is therefore not “insignificant”, but the sign of how China is evolving.

One last point is worth mentioning: Msgr. Shao Zhumin is the bishop of a now unified Church, where there is no longer the division between official and underground Catholics, exactly what Pope Francis hoped for in his Messageto Chinese Catholics and the World, published a few days after the agreement. Still, the PA, in addition to kidnapping the bishop, has in these days banned “official” priests from going to pay homage to the tombs of “underground” priests and bishops. And this is the sign that the division in the Chinese Church is not intended primarily by Catholics, but by the Party. This policy – which has lasted for 60 years – does not seem in favor of the evangelization of China, but – as mentioned so many times in the past by the same PA – is a step towards the suppression of all Christians.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


THE VALID CARDINALS, i.e. CARDINALS APPOINTED BY POPES BENEDICT XVI AND SAINT JOHN PAUL II, MUST ACT SOON TO REMOVE FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL FROM THE THRONE OF SAINT PETER BEFORE HE DAMAGES THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH EVEN MORE THAN HE HAS ALREADY DAMAGED IT.


Recently many educated Catholic observers, including bishops and priests, have decried the confusion in doctrinal statements about faith or morals made from the Apostolic See at Rome and by the putative Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis. Some devout, faithful and thoughtful Catholics have even suggested that he be set aside as a heretic, a dangerous purveyor of error, as recently mentioned in a number of reports. Claiming heresy on the part of a man who is a supposed Pope, charging material error in statements about faith or morals by a putative Roman Pontiff, suggests and presents an intervening prior question about his authenticity in that August office of Successor of Peter as Chief of The Apostles, i.e., was this man the subject of a valid election by an authentic Conclave of The Holy Roman Church?  This is so because each Successor of Saint Peter enjoys the Gift of Infallibility.  So, before one even begins to talk about excommunicating such a prelate, one must logically examine whether this person exhibits the uniformly good and safe fruit of Infallibility.

If he seems repeatedly to engage in material error, that first raises the question of the validity of his election because one expects an authentically-elected Roman Pontiff miraculously and uniformly to be entirely incapable of stating error in matters of faith or morals.  So to what do we look to discern the invalidity of such an election?  His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, within His massive legacy to the Church and to the World, left us with the answer to this question.  The Catholic faithful must look back for an answer to a point from where we have come—to what occurred in and around the Sistine Chapel in March 2013 and how the fruits of those events have generated such widespread concern among those people of magisterial orthodoxy about confusing and, or, erroneous doctrinal statements which emanate from The Holy See.

His Apostolic Constitution (Universi Dominici Gregis) which governed the supposed Conclave in March 2013 contains quite clear and specific language about the invalidating effect of departures from its norms.  For example, Paragraph 76 states:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”

From this, many believe that there is probable cause to believe that Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio was never validly elected as the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter—he never rightly took over the office of Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore he does not enjoy the charism of Infallibility.  If this is true, then the situation is dire because supposed papal acts may not be valid or such acts are clearly invalid, including supposed appointments to the college of electors itself.

Only valid cardinals can rectify our critical situation through privately (secretly) recognizing the reality of an ongoing interregnum and preparing for an opportunity to put the process aright by obedience to the legislation of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in that Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  While thousands of the Catholic faithful do understand that only the cardinals who participated in the events of March 2013 within the Sistine Chapel have all the information necessary to evaluate the issue of election validity, there was public evidence sufficient for astute lay faithful to surmise with moral certainty that the March 2013 action by the College was an invalid conclave, an utter nullity.

What makes this understanding of Universi Dominici Gregisparticularly cogent and plausible is the clear Promulgation Clause at the end of this Apostolic Constitution and its usage of the word “scienter” (“knowingly”).  The Papal Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis thus concludes definitively with these words:  “.   .   .   knowingly or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”  (“.   .   .   scienter vel inscienter contra hanc Constitutionem fuerint excogitata.”)  [Note that His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, had a somewhat similar promulgation clause at the end of his corresponding, now abrogated, Apostolic Constitution, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but his does not use “scienter”, but rather uses “sciens” instead. This similar term of sciens in the earlier abrogated Constitution has an entirely different legal significance than scienter.] This word, “scienter”, is a legal term of art in Roman law, and in canon law, and in Anglo-American common law, and in each system, scienter has substantially the same significance, i.e., “guilty knowledge” or willfully knowing, criminal intent.

Thus, it clearly appears that Pope John Paul II anticipated the possibility of criminal activity in the nature of a sacrilege against a process which He intended to be purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual, if not miraculous, in its nature. This contextual reality reinforced in the Promulgation Clause, combined with:  (1) the tenor of the whole document; (2) some other provisions of the document, e.g., Paragraph 76; (3) general provisions of canon law relating to interpretation, e.g., Canons 10 & 17; and, (4) the obvious manifest intention of the Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, tends to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the legal conclusion that Monsignor Bergoglio was never validly elected Roman Pontiff.

This is so because:1.  Communication of any kind with the outside world, e.g., communication did occur between the inside of the Sistine Chapel and anyone outside, including a television audience, before, during or even immediately after the Conclave;2.   Any political commitment to “a candidate” and any “course of action” planned for The Church or a future pontificate, such as the extensive decade-long “pastoral” plans conceived by the Sankt Gallen hierarchs; and,3.  Any departure from the required procedures of the conclave voting process as prescribed and known by a cardinal to have occurred:each was made an invalidating act, and if scienter (guilty knowledge) was present, also even a crime on the part of any cardinal or other actor, but, whether criminal or not, any such act or conduct violating the norms operated absolutely, definitively and entirely against the validity of all of the supposed Conclave proceedings.

Quite apart from the apparent notorious violations of the prohibition on a cardinal promising his vote, e.g., commitments given and obtained by cardinals associated with the so-called “Sankt Gallen Mafia,” other acts destructive of conclave validity occurred.  Keeping in mind that Pope John Paul II specifically focused Universi Dominici Gregis on “the seclusion and resulting concentration which an act so vital to the whole Church requires of the electors” such that “the electors can more easily dispose themselves to accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit,” even certain openly public media broadcasting breached this seclusion by electronic broadcasts outlawed by Universi Dominici Gregis.  These prohibitions include direct declarative statements outlawing any use of television before, during or after a conclave in any area associated with the proceedings, e.g.:  “I further confirm, by my apostolic authority, the duty of maintaining the strictest secrecy with regard to everything that directly or indirectly concerns the election process itself.” Viewed in light of this introductory preambulary language of Universi Dominici Gregis and in light of the legislative text itself, even the EWTN camera situated far inside the Sistine Chapel was an immediately obvious non-compliant  act which became an open and notorious invalidating violation by the time when this audio-visual equipment was used to broadcast to the world the preaching after the “Extra Omnes”.  While these blatant public violations of Chapter IV of Universi Dominici Gregis actuate the invalidity and nullity of the proceedings themselves, nonetheless in His great wisdom, the Legislator did not disqualify automatically those cardinals who failed to recognize these particular offenses against sacred secrecy, or even those who, with scienter, having recognized the offenses and having had some power or voice in these matters, failed or refused to act or to object against them:  “Should any infraction whatsoever of this norm occur and be discovered, those responsible should know that they will be subject to grave penalties according to the judgment of the future Pope.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, ¶55]

No Pope apparently having been produced in March 2013, those otherwise valid cardinals who failed with scienter to act on violations of Chapter IV, on that account alone would nonetheless remain voting members of the College unless and until a new real Pope is elected and adjudges them.  

Thus, those otherwise valid cardinals who may have been compromised by violations of secrecy can still participate validly in the “clean-up of the mess” while addressing any such secrecy violations with an eventual new Pontiff.  In contrast, the automatic excommunication of those who politicized the sacred conclave process, by obtaining illegally, commitments from cardinals to vote for a particular man, or to follow a certain course of action (even long before the vacancy of the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ), is established not only by the word, “scienter,” in the final enacting clause, but by a specific exception, in this case, to the general statement of invalidity which therefore reinforces the clarity of intention by Legislator that those who apply the law must interpret the general rule as truly binding.  Derived directly from Roman law, canonical jurisprudence provides this principle for construing or interpreting legislation such as this Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis.  Expressed in Latin, this canon of interpretation is:   “Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.”  (The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.)  In this case, an exception from invalidity for acts of simony reinforces the binding force of the general principle of nullity in cases of other violations. Therefore, by exclusion from nullity and invalidity legislated in the case of simony: “If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae.  At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”  

His Holiness made an exception for simony. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis.  The clear exception from nullity and invalidity for simony proves the general rule that other violations of the sacred process certainly do and did result in the nullity and invalidity of the entire conclave. Comparing what Pope John Paul II wrote in His Constitution on conclaves with the Constitution which His replaced, you can see that, with the exception of simony, invalidity became universal. 

In the corresponding paragraph of what Pope Paul VI wrote, he specifically confined the provision declaring conclave invalidity to three (3) circumstances described in previous paragraphs within His constitution, Romano Pontfici Eligendo.  No such limitation exists in Universi Dominici Gregis.  See the comparison both in English and Latin below:Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77. Should the election be conducted in a manner different from the three procedures described above (cf. no. 63 ff.) or without the conditions laid down for each of the same, it is for this very reason null and void (cf. no. 62), without the need for any declaration, and gives no right to him who has been thus elected. [Romano Pontfici Eligendo, 77:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam uno e tribus modis, qui supra sunt dicti (cfr. nn. 63 sqq.), aut non servatis condicionibus pro unoquoque illorum praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida (cfr. n. 62) absque ulla declaratione, et ita electo nullum ius tribuit .”] as compared with:Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.”  [Universi Dominici Gregis, 76:  “Quodsi electio aliter celebrata fuerit, quam haec Constitutio statuit, aut non servatis condicionibus pariter hic praescriptis, electio eo ipso est nulla et invalida absque ulla declaratione, ideoque electo nullum ius tribuit.”]Of course, this is not the only feature of the Constitution or aspect of the matter which tends to establish the breadth of invalidity.

 Faithful must hope and pray that only those cardinals whose status as a valid member of the College remains intact will ascertain the identity of each other and move with the utmost charity and discretion in order to effectuate The Divine Will in these matters.  The valid cardinals, then, must act according to that clear, manifest, obvious and unambiguous mind and intention of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, so evident in Universi Dominici Gregis, a law which finally established binding and self-actuating conditions of validity on the College for any papal conclave, a reality now made so apparent by the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion and plain error. It would seem then that praying and working in a discreet and prudent manner to encourage only those true cardinals inclined to accept a reality of conclave invalidity, would be a most charitable and logical course of action in the light of Universi Dominici Gregis, and out of our high personal regard for the clear and obvious intention of its Legislator, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.  Even a relatively small number of valid cardinals could act decisively and work to restore a functioning Apostolic See through the declaration of an interregnum government.  The need is clear for the College to convene a General Congregation in order to declare, to administer, and soon to end the Interregnum which has persisted since March 2013. Finally, it is important to understand that the sheer number of putative counterfeit cardinals will eventually, sooner or later, result in a situation in which The Church will have no normal means validly ever again to elect a Vicar of Christ.  After that time, it will become even more difficult, if not humanly impossible, for the College of Cardinals to rectify the current disastrous situation and conduct a proper and valid Conclave such that The Church may once again both have the benefit of a real Supreme Pontiff, and enjoy the great gift of a truly infallible Vicar of Christ.  It seems that some good cardinals know that the conclave was invalid, but really cannot envision what to do about it; we must pray, if it is the Will of God, that they see declaring the invalidity and administering an Interregnum through a new valid conclave is what they must do.  Without such action or without a great miracle, The Church is in a perilous situation.  Once the last validly appointed cardinal reaches age 80, or before that age, dies, the process for electing a real Pope ends with no apparent legal means to replace it. Absent a miracle then, The Church would no longer have an infallible Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ.  Roman Catholics would be no different that Orthodox Christians. In this regard, all of the true cardinals may wish to consider what Holy Mother Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶675, ¶676 and ¶677 about “The Church’s Ultimate Trial”.  But, the fact that “The Church .   .   .  will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection” does not justify inaction by the good cardinals, even if there are only a minimal number sufficient to carry out Chapter II of Universi Dominici Gregis and operate the Interregnum. This Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, which was clearly applicable to the acts and conduct of the College of Cardinals in March 2013, is manifestly and obviously among those “invalidating” laws “which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected” as stated in Canon 10 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  And, there is nothing remotely “doubtful or obscure” (Canon 17) about this Apostolic Constitution as clearly promulgated by Pope John Paul II.  The tenor of the whole document expressly establishes that the issue of invalidity was always at stake.  This Apostolic Constitution conclusively establishes, through its Promulgation Clause [which makes “anything done (i.e., any act or conduct) by any person  .   .   .   in any way contrary to this Constitution,”] the invalidity of the entire supposed Conclave, rendering it “completely null and void”. So, what happens if a group of Cardinals who undoubtedly did not knowingly and wilfully initiate or intentionally participate in any acts of disobedience against Universi Dominici Gregis were to meet, confer and declare that, pursuant to Universi Dominici Gregis, Monsignor Bergoglio is most certainly not a valid Roman Pontiff.  Like any action on this matter, including the initial finding of invalidity, that would be left to the valid members of the college of cardinals.  They could declare the Chair of Peter vacant and proceed to a new and proper conclave.  They could meet with His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and discern whether His resignation and retirement was made under duress, or based on some mistake or fraud, or otherwise not done in a legally effective manner, which could invalidate that resignation.  Given the demeanor of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, and the tenor of His few public statements since his departure from the Chair of Peter, this recognition of validity in Benedict XVI seems unlikely. In fact, even before a righteous group of good and authentic cardinals might decide on the validity of the March 2013 supposed conclave, they must face what may be an even more complicated discernment and decide which men are most likely not valid cardinals.  If a man was made a cardinal by the supposed Pope who is, in fact, not a Pope (but merely Monsignor Bergoglio), no such man is in reality a true member of the College of Cardinals.  In addition, those men appointed by Pope John Paul II or by Pope Benedict XVI as cardinals, but who openly violated Universi Dominici Gregis by illegal acts or conduct causing the invalidation of the last attempted conclave, would no longer have voting rights in the College of Cardinals either.  (Thus, the actual valid members in the College of Cardinals may be quite smaller in number than those on the current official Vatican list of supposed cardinals.) In any event, the entire problem is above the level of anyone else in Holy Mother Church who is below the rank of Cardinal.  So, we must pray that The Divine Will of The Most Holy Trinity, through the intercession of Our Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and Saint Michael, Prince of Mercy, very soon rectifies the confusion in Holy Mother Church through action by those valid Cardinals who still comprise an authentic College of Electors.  Only certainly valid Cardinals can address the open and notorious evidence which points to the probable invalidity of the last supposed conclave and only those cardinals can definitively answer the questions posed here.  May only the good Cardinals unite and if they recognize an ongoing Interregnum, albeit dormant, may they end this Interregnum by activating perfectly a functioning Interregnum government of The Holy See and a renewed process for a true Conclave, one which is purely pious, private, sacramental, secret and deeply spiritual.  If we do not have a real Pontiff, then may the good Cardinals, doing their appointed work “in view of the sacredness of the act of election”  “accept the interior movements of the Holy Spirit” and provide Holy Mother Church with a real Vicar of Christ as the Successor of Saint Peter.   May these thoughts comport with the synderetic considerations of those who read them and may their presentation here please both Our Immaculate Virgin Mother, Mary, Queen of the Apostles, and The Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.N. de PlumeUn ami des Papes

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to After extolling “synodality” as the preeminent fruit of last October’s synod of bishops, and after promising since 2013 more autonomy and powers for the episcopal conferences, including some “authentic doctrinal authority,” Pope Francis dismembered the agenda of the plenary assembly of one of the biggest episcopates in the world, that of the United States, which today concluded its meeting in Baltimore.

Comments are closed.