Some months ago, a Catholic bishop in Puerto Rico was removed from office by Pope Francis, in a move which some have questioned for its appropriateness. On March 9, Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres was relieved of his apostolic duties in the Diocese of Arecibo. His crime? According to the bishop himself, he was accused of not having “been obedient to the pope” and apparently lacked “sufficient communion with my brother bishops of Puerto Rico.”
Prudence dictates that we wait for more information on this particular situation. But as it stands, it appears that this bishop stood out for a number of reasons: he refused to send his seminarians to the new Interdiocesan Seminary of Puerto Rico, he refused to sign multiple bishops’ conference statements (including those that severely restricted the traditional Latin Mass), stated that Catholics have a right to conscientious objection to COVID vaccines, and argued against gender ideology. To this day, Bishop Fernández remains a bishop without a See, his replacement was appointed, and his request for a papal audience has not yet been granted.
The weaponization of “communion”
All too often, specific words popular in Catholic discourse take on a life on their own, or rather, are manipulated to fit a specific meaning, whether or not such a meaning is warranted by the word’s meaning itself. Words such as “accompaniment”, “encounter”, “dialogue”, and “rigid” function as ecclesial dog whistles. They mean exactly what the speaker wishes them to mean—nothing more and nothing less.
For example, we might hear about how Catholics must “accompany” pro-abortion politicians as they try to work out the apparently perplexing decision of whether or not to support infanticide. Such “accompaniment”, however, apparently refers to holding their hand in the line to receive Holy Communion, and never “accompanying” them to the nearest confessional. On a similar note, “encounter”—once the buzzword of Pope Francis’ pontificate—has been defined as allowing the marginalized to “be part of the life of the community without being hindered, rejected or judged.”
It is unclear how the present pontificate is able to simultaneously promote this definition of “encounter”, while simultaneously forbidding parishes from listing times when the traditional Latin Mass is offered. We are told to “dialogue” with adherents of other religions, but as soon as the dialogue turns into trying to convince the non-Catholic the truth of the Faith, we have seemingly missed the mark. “Rigid” always seems to refer to those attached to traditional forms of worship, but never to those inflexible and insistent persons who assert that decisions made in the 1970s are irreversible.
Returning to the strange case of Bishop Fernández, we find another word that, despite its importance for the Church’s life, has been weaponized by certain ideological camps. The word is “communion”. Like a smug child seeking praise, these camps seize any opportunity to accuse their opponents of not being in sufficient “communion” with the pope. When four cardinals submitted a dubia to Pope Francis seeking clarification on Amoris Laetitia, one archbishop called it a “very grave scandal,” one that could strip them of their cardinalate, and stated that to question Pope Francis is to “doubt the Holy Spirit.” Papal cheerleaders drum the beat of Lumen gentium §25, which speaks of the duty of “religious submission of mind and will” to the papal magisterium. This “religious submission” (obsequium religiosum) is then used as a sword against anyone who disagrees with anything said or done by the Holy Father, including those often befuddling papal plane interviews.
It is ironic, then, that the same people who warned against “creeping infallibility” in previous pontificates are quick to dogmatize every word spoken by the current pope. While intra-ecclesial debates over the scopes and limits of the papacy are bound to continue, there is little said about the weaponization of “communion”. Are there any objective criteria to being “in communion” with the pope, aside from recognizing his primacy and authority? What is the theological basis for such communion? And, ultimately, of what does communion consist?
First, let me explain my motivation for asking these questions. Primarily, I am concerned that “communion”—a major concept in the Catholic tradition and said to be “the central and fundamental idea of the Council’s documents”—has been repeatedly misused to promote a cult of personality for certain popes over and against others. Simply put, the idea of “communion” is far too precious for the Church’s life to be flung around carelessly and for ideological ends.
Secondarily, I realize that there is a wide gap between our theological understanding of communion and how it is put into practice. Let us look no further than the Rhineland. Anyone who is watching the current ecclesial landscape in Germany can see that the “Synodal Way” is obviously at odds with perennial Catholic teaching on faith and morals. And yet, aside from the occasional warning, it is nonetheless presumed they currently remain “in communion” with the pope, and thus by extension, with the Catholic Church. One wonders how a priest who criticizes the Church’s response to the sexual abuse crisis can be suspended, while German bishops and priests who defy Pope Francis’ wishes (as well as the Faith, in general) by blessing same-sex unions are still considered to be in good standing with the Church.
A fuller understanding of communion can only help distinguish between true and false notions of what communion entails.
Objective criteria
Remaining with the previous example, let’s ask again: is there any objective criteria that determines if one is in communion with the Catholic Church? Certainly, recognition of papal power and authority is a major aspect of it.
For example, this is what primarily separates a Ukrainian Orthodox bishop from a Ukrainian Greek Catholic one—they share the same liturgies, the same feasts, many of the same saints; and yet, the mere acknowledgement of Catholic teaching on the papacy is enough to transition the former into the latter. When the Ukrainian Orthodox Archbishop Ihor Isichenko recently entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, he did not need to be re-ordained, have to re-do his seminary training, or even change the majority of his ritual worship. Those who received him into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church presumably did not ask his thoughts on the Filioque or on divorce and remarriage, both additional issues that are said to separate Orthodox from Catholics.
Instead, the major assent involved was to acknowledge the Roman Pontiff’s “supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power… over the entire Church,” including his “primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies.” (Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, 43-45). This echoes Lumen gentium’s teaching that the pope is “the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.” (§23) So from the start, we must acknowledge that communion in the Catholic Church requires communion with the Roman Pontiff.
But aside from nodding affirmatively to Church teaching on the papacy, is there anything else that measures this communion? In other words, what good is it to announce that one is “in communion with the Roman Pontiff” if one’s professed beliefs not only contradict the Holy Father’s, but more importantly, the deposit of faith? Sacred Scripture reminds us that even demons recognize the truth of God (Lk 4:34; Jas 2:19) We might then say that even demons recognize papal primacy. Certainly, we will not say that demons, by virtue of their recognition of this truth, are part of the Catholic Church!
But are bishops who bless same-sex unions and promote women’s ordination on the same level of communion as those bishops who do not? Both groups recognize, at least intellectually, the primacy of Peter in the person of the pope. To deny this would result in schism, which to this day is only as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (CIC, 751) But what if the pope allowed blessings for same-sex unions? According to the Johan Bonny, bishop of Antwerp, his guidelines for blessing same-sex unions is “aligned with Pope Francis,” something of the utmost significance, “because communion with the pope is sacred to me.” Let us assume, for a minute, that Bishop Bonny is telling the truth, and that blessing same-sex unions would be in line with the papal allowance. Is obedience to the Holy Father the only criteria for remaining in Catholic communion? Would this mean that those bishops who reject the pope’s toleration of this practice are suddenly schismatic?
When communion is reduced to surface-level loyalty to the pope, it loses its rich, theological meaning. Such ersatz communion is nothing more than nominalistic voluntarism—it lacks any objective realism or conforming to principles beyond the self-assertion that one is “in communion” due to one’s base recognition of the Roman Pontiff.
Theological basis for communion
The English word “communion” essentially derives from the Greek root koinon-, commonly found as koinonia. In Greek, the word denotes a sharing of goods, having things in common, and a communal participation in a singular task. In Sacred Scripture, we find this word most prominent in the writings of St. Paul. Most famously, it is used when Paul describes participation in the Lord’s Supper: “The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10:16).
Communion is expressed both in the communal partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ with one another, but also the act of union with the divine life Christ offers. Koinonia refers to the sharing of life between the community with one another, as well as the sharing of life between the community and its founder, Jesus Christ. Communion reveals both God’s identity as well as our own. St. Paul uses the root for koinonia when referring to the collection for the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:4; Rom 15:26) and the fellowship Christians have in their faith (Phlm 6), and the collaborative character of his ministry (2 Cor 8:23). However, the Gospels never use the term koinonia, and even in the other New Testament writings, the Church is never explicitly described as koinonia. This is not to say that it is wrong to identify the Church with “communion”, but that if we do so, we must guard against holding “communion” as the Scriptural model of the Church par excellence.
Twentieth-century ecclesiology made frequent use of the term “communion” in describing the Church. Often times, theologians would point to the Trinity as a communion of Persons, and analogically speak of the Church as a communion of particular Churches or even people. Communion ecclesiology still enjoys prevalence today, especially within Catholic and Orthodox circles. The theological basis for communion lay within its suitability to describe both the human and divine elements of the Church. On a sociological or interpersonal level, understanding the Church as communion recognizes the corporate nature of the Church as something composed of not only myself and God, but others, both living and deceased. To explain the Church as a communion in these terms shows the horizontality of the Church, which exists across the world.
Communion ecclesiology flowed well into Eucharistic ecclesiology, which emphasizes the local Church, the bishop at its head, and the relationship of the local Church to the universal Church. On an aesthetic or spiritual level, understanding the Church as communion recognizes that the Church is the extension of Christ in His Mystical Body. Thus, just as the divine and human natures are hypostatically united to the Word, so too are those divine and human elements united vertically into the mystery of the Trinity. The Church is a communion because it participates in the communion of the three Divine Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Unitatis Redintegratio, 2.) Any understanding of the Church-as-communion must first proceed from the Trinitarian mystery if it is to have any credibility.
Prior to the Second Vatican Council, theology manuals treated communion either as Holy Communion or the communion of saints. Theologians preceding the Council carefully built upon Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) in explaining the nature of the Church as the flowering of Christ’s Mystical Body. Thus, ecumenically-minded theologians including Jérôme Hamer, O.P. and Yves Congar were deeply committed to moving beyond a juridical notion of the Church as a “perfect society” that was solely visible, and did not leave much room for the invisible workings of the Holy Spirit.
However, as important as their contributions were, one can argue that their poetic writings on the Church as communion sometimes muddied the waters so that communion ecclesiology would not be able to identify the basis for the Church’s communion apart from its inter-relationality. Communion becomes an aspired model, a perpetual work in progress, and has no solid basis apart from a feeling that one belongs to another—particularly that of the pope. Whatever its limitations, St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition of Church membership – the one which communion ecclesiologists sought to supersede—had being under papal authority as one aspect of communion, and not the sole one. For Bellarmine, membership in the Catholic Church consisted of the following: profession of the true faith, the communion of the Sacraments, and subjection to the legitimate pastor, the Roman Pontiff.
Ironically, Bellarmine’s definition (as well as Pius XII’s centuries later in Mystici Corporis) was more inclusive than post-Vatican II ecclesiologies, because the former presumed one was a Catholic in good standing until proven otherwise, while the latter requires a subjective determination of how “fully” one is united to the Church (LG, 14). While Vatican II’s teaching on the Church contains many great insights, its attempt to gradate communion without explicit, objective criteria turns ecclesial communion into an ideal held together only by hierarchical power.
Conclusion
So, then, we ask again: of what does communion consist? With Vatican II, we affirm that
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. (LG, 14)
But, as current events in the Church have shown, such a definition has its limitations. As groups of bishops move towards heterodoxy while simultaneously recognizing papal authority, we have a schizophrenic concept of communion.
St. Thomas Aquinas notes that the Church is built upon sacraments and faith. In asking whether the Apostles or their successors can institute new sacraments, Aquinas answers in the negative, stating:
The apostles and their successors are God’s vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of faith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so neither may they deliver another faith, nor institute other sacraments: on the contrary, the Church is said to be built up with the sacraments “which flowed from the side of Christ while hanging on the Cross.” (ST III.64, art. 2, ad. 3).
Being in communion with the Church presupposes that one is in communion with the Church’s faith and sacraments, which are mediated—and not created—by the hierarchy. Thus, to the extent that troublesome German bishops deviate from the Church’s sacramental rites and faith, we can say that they are no longer in Catholic communion—despite their supposed allegiance to the pope. If communion is going to be an appropriate concept for our reflections on the Church, then it must have a specific meaning, lest it be rendered completely meaningless.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Because the Bavarian and emeritus Pope Benedict XVI still adhered to clarity as to what “communion” meant and means, he was branded by revolutionaries as the “Pope’s Rottweiler” (under St. Pope John Paul II).
Today, in contrast, we have a leash-less dog park with quadrupeds in red hats barking incoherently. Particularly Marx, Batzing and Hollerich, but also with some more diminutive camp followers sniffing around–plastic baggies anyone? ….Historically, the recently canonized (as in, shelved?) St. John Henry Cardinal Newman offered a distinction between papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals (under precise and restrictive conditions) and papal fallibility (today’s problematic “prudential judgments” of governance, informal airline interviews, isolation of pastoral license from muted truth, appointments and dismissals, elastic parsing of words, etc.).
Giving due recognition to the quandaries facing anyone selected, by papal conclave, in today’s centrifugal world–it’s clarifying to recall historical moments which Newman identified as also not worthy of creeping and creepy papolatry:
“What have excommunication and interdict to do with infallibility? Was St. Peter infallible on that occasion at Antioch when St. Paul withstood him? Was St. Victor infallible when he separated from his communion the Asiatic Churches? Or Liberius when in like manner he excommunicated Athanasius? And, to come to later times, was Gregory XIII, when he had a medal struck in honour of the Bartholomew massacre? Or Paul IV in his conduct towards Elizabeth? Or Sixtus V when he blessed the Armada? Or Urban VIII when he persecuted Galileo? No Catholic ever pretends that these Popes were infallible in these acts” (from a Letter to the Duke of Norfolk [1876], in Vincent Blehl [ed.], “The Essential Newman,” 1963).
“Today, in contrast, we have a leash-less dog park with quadrupeds in red hats barking incoherently”‘ This line, candidate for a grand slam repartie.
The above a response to: “Words such as ‘accompaniment’, ‘encounter’, ‘dialogue’, and ‘rigid’ function as ecclesial dog whistles.”
The question raised should be whether Francis is in communion with the See of Peter. Is Francis in communion with the papal office he holds? Many are asking this question.
Dissenting Catholics may be asking the question. We keep telling them yes. You can’t keep asking the same question over and over and expect to get a different answer just because you ask it tomorrow. Or louder. Or from the Napa Valley or some airport.
Bishops have always been deposed from their sees. It is nothing new post-B16. Just ask Bishop Bill Morris.
Yes, questions can be asked over and over again when they are left unanswered or until what prompted those questions is no longer relevant.
I think the answers are, “Yes he is.” And “Yes, he is.” Perhaps it is time to move along from those questions and attend to matters more pertinent to living the Gospel in one’s daily life. And if one feels she or he can’t be in Communion with the pope, whatever that means, then do as the Protestants, Anglicans, and Orthodox do: fulfill the mandate of Matthew 25:31ff and be in Communion with the Savior.
You’re confused (at best). I am certainly in communion with the Pope and the Office of Peter; please don’t even try to imply that I am not. The question remains whether Francis is discharging his office as he ought i.e. in communion with the mandates of the office that pertain to being the supreme shepherd of Christ’s Church here on earth – Christ’s Vicar. It’s not sufficient for you to state that he is ‘de facto.’ You need to substantiate that factually and not merely opine. Remember that no Pope is infallible on all matters – just when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ on matters of faith and morals. There is no sin in questioning a Pope’s execution of his office, nor does it imply that such questioning doubts the validity of his office.
Not confused. Not at all.
Pope Francis exercises the ministry of Peter on a daily basis. I feel satisfied with that. If I question a pope, I prefer to focus on the words or actions, rather than the person. When he teaches in a document like Traditiones Custodes, he’s in Communion, obviously, for his attention to unity, the hallmark of the Roman See. When he slaps the hand of a well-wisher, obviously not.
Now, if we’re talking political ideology, I think he bothers many people by not directly engaging it. That’s Communion too.
As far as the mRNA mandates; Fox just reported on a national or coast guard soldier whom the President called and congratulated for being a hero, but the soldier is being fired for not getting mRNA (includes spike protein).
Mr. Monaco’s excellent monograph on “communion” can be reduced to this simple semantically based heuristic:
When Bergoglio’s Vatican uses the word, “communion,” they mean reflexive, mindless, unquestioning and enthusiastic conformity.
“If communion is going to be an appropriate concept for our reflections on the Church, then it must have a specific meaning, lest it be rendered completely meaningless.”
I would say that the meaning is relatively simple. Has the person in question been excommunicated? If not, then he is “in communion.” Of course, those who aren’t Catholic can’t be “in communion” and AREN’T “brothers.”
Although, I’m not convinced LG 14 is deficient in details of Communion, because this Dogmatic Constitution is not a Catechism, Monaco’s, “As current events in the Church have shown, such a definition has its limitations. As groups of bishops move towards heterodoxy while simultaneously recognizing papal authority, we have a schizophrenic concept of communion” defines many of our bishops’ incoherent adaptation to modern heterodoxy while convinced of their self assumed orthodoxy. At the heart of an inner moral collapse.
John Monaco correctly quotes Aquinas on what coherence is, although his targeting the German Synodaler Weg is fine as an example but not indicative of the root cause. That speaks to the power of messaging since 2013, oft indirect, suggestive, obliquely confirmed [Argentine Papal correspondence entered in Acta Apostolicae Sedis]. Our German Synodal Way [Synodaler Weg] is symptom of festering heterodoxy encouraged and abetted by the current papacy policy, seemingly as a foil for the larger universal Synod on Synodality that pastors are now obliged to facilitate [a new job description terminology for priest from presbyter, local ordinary, Roman pontiff, replacing the former witness to Christ]. Whether His Holiness may have the best of intentions at heart, these don’t match, insofar as their effect those revealed by Christ.
Was Jesus ‘In Communion’ with the God Authorized, infallible, Jewish High Priest Caiaphas, as His circumcision into the Jewish Faith Commanded that He be? Jesus’ Greatest Gift was His perfect obedience to God the Father, which is His Gift of perfect love to God the Father, and which is His perfect Gift of Love for fellow man, through His Obedience in going to His death on the Cross. God the Father did Command that all those circumcised into His Jewish Church, like Jesus, respect the authority of the Priestly sons of Aaron and Moses. Here is Jesus’ response to the question.
Matthew 23:1 Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees.
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
If Jesus, because He is God, was outside of having to obey His, God Authorized Church leader, as God had Commanded circumcised men like Jesus to do, then was Jesus able to commit other sins against God’s Commandments as well, and still be Perfect Loving Obedient to God the Father? How could Jesus be the Perfect sinless sacrifice on the Cross, if He had disobeyed God the Father’s Command that all circumcised Jews respect, God’s Authority in the High Priest of His Jewish Church? The answer is that Jesus, like His fellow Jewish Church members, which He was In Communion With, had to do all that God Authorized Church leaders tell them to do, but like Jesus’ fellow circumcised Jewish brothers, Jesus had Freedom of Speech to condemn, any and all, actions of even the Highest of Priests in the Jewish Faith, and still remain In Full Communion with God’s Church on earth.
So was it Jesus, or God authorized, Jewish High Priest Caiaphas, who was in the wrong, in the dispute between Jesus and God’s Authorized Jewish Church High Priest? Though Jesus had, like all God’s Faithful have, “Conscious Objector” Freedom of Speech, which He used constantly to sinlessly speak out against His God Authorized Church Leaders, Jesus subjected Himself to the Passion and Cross, that God Authorized Church Leaders, equal to Pope Francis, had order Him to do.
Matthew 26:62 Jesus Before the Sanhedrin.
The high priest rose and addressed him, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?” But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so. But I tell you:
From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power’
and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’”
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy; what is your opinion?” They said in reply, “He deserves to die!” Then they spat in his face and struck him, while some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy for us, Messiah: who is it that struck you?”
The only way Jesus could remain obedient to God the Father, and In Communion with His Jewish Church, as His circumcision commanded of Him, is for it not to be a sin for those In Communion with the Catholic and Jewish Faiths, to Consciously Object and verbally oppose the evil wickedness of our God Authorized Jewish and Catholic Church leaders, even those at the High Priest level.
Catholic Leaders can change Church Laws, but they cannot tell those In Communion with God’s Church, to shut our mouths. God Himself has granted us Freedom of Speech. If this were not true, then Jesus Himself would have been silenced from Proclaiming the Word of God!
Matthew 23:13 Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven* before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves. “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.’ Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred?…
I got kind of lost in this essay. I’ll just add the word “communion” to that list that includes accompaniment, encounter, dialogue and rigid and that makes my eyes glaze over.
Gilberta, I feel like you, but after much intellectual huffing and puffing (we are dealing in this article with an author with a docorate)I find he makes a lot of sense and exposes the empty pompousness of those who, following Pope Francis, use words like “encounter”, “communion”, etc. not as words but as empty bags which they fill with whatever contradicts their real Catholic meaning.
I invite you to the read the article here on CWR about “Speechless” the book written by Michael Knowles. It connects directly with this one and shows how the Pope is using the exact same devious, deception, dehumanizing language strategy.
Monaco concludes: “If communion is going to be an appropriate concept for our reflections on the Church, then it must have a specific meaning, lest it be rendered completely meaningless.”
That word—”meaningless”—triggered a memory…
What if the new non-meaning is to be found not in a Church “assembled” by the Eucharist (the pope’s prayer intention for October is curiously translated as “congregation”), but as essentially a non-specific collage of Pachamama, Sinicization, the German bizarro world “synodal way”… chameleon synods?
Recall that at the very front end of the Reformation, both the emperor and the pope were a bit distracted by the inroads of Islam in eastern Europe…So, we might stretch what a preeminent Western scholar of Islam has to say about catch-all “fraternity”—for us, “communion” by another name and meaning?
“The revolutionaries in France had summarized their ideology in a formula of classical terseness–liberty, equality, fraternity [“fraternity”!]. Some time was to pass before they, and ultimately their disciples elsewhere, came to realize that the first two were mutually exclusive and that the third was meaningless [“meaningless”!]. Of far greater effect, in the impact of Western ideas on Islam, were two related notions—neither of them originating with the French Revolution, but both of them classically formulated and actively disseminated by its leaders: namely, secularism [for us, Germania!] and nationalism [for us, “continental” synodality without a center?]…” (Bernard Lewis, “the State and Society under Islam,” Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 1989).
Not a replacement of specific “communion,” but cross-dressed with wraparound syncretism?
Phil – Maybe I’ll have another crack at it.
P.S. I appreciate clear, lucid and to-the-point writing, doctorate or no doctorate.
Okey dokey! Very well! Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in that second reading. It does help!
I have serious trouble with the idea of being “in Communion” with those who wink at abortion, vote for legalized murder of babies for all 9 months, transgenderism, mutilation of young people trying to switch their DNA sex, marriage between anyone, etc… As I recall the Apostles told the early church communities to “stay away” from those Christians who do such things. Is the New Testament in error when we read that we are to not associate with certain fallen away Christians (Catholics)? It doesn’t sound like the New Testament recommended accompaniment or dialogue. It said “stay away”.
About the Apostles, this from St. Paul: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).
Rigid bigots take note! Do we not hear the prophet Batzing barking from his dog patch: “things are going to change!” But, when do souls become soles, and “welcoming” become a door mat?
This would be our Luke 18:9-14 moment.
“When communion is reduced to surface-level loyalty to the pope, it loses its rich, theological meaning.” Indeed, this pope reduces the church to a church of men without care of God’s will and command. He said from the beginning he wants to reform the church slowly to make everlasting changes. To please the people and to make room for other denominations and religions, as he demonstrated in Sweden at the 500th Lutheran jubilee, and signing pacts with Islam in Abu Dhabi to build three temples there. Look at all the cardinals he nominated! Look how tolerant this pope is with sexual abusers and homosexuals. Cardinal Marx is a driving force of the rebellion in Germany and promoter of blessing same sex unions for the least; he offered resignation and the pope wrote: Stay where you are brother, I need you there. Attempting to push the Amazon region to prove that we need married priests and again and again examines if we can have female deacons. He invited the nature religion including the Pacha mother nature goddess into the holy sanctuary of St. Peter’s; where the idolatry of worshipping nature as god and not the Creator Almighty is blasphemy and rebellion against our God. “The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST.” (CCC779) This pope separates the people church from the sacredness of the very Body of Christ and the holy members in with and through the body of Christ. This pope does not repel the German Synodal Way nor the erroneous teachings of their seminaries who are taught that Holy Communion is for all and they are practicing it everywhere and that homosexuality is no sin. Jesus said “I did not come to condemn…but my Words will condemn you” The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the sacraments” (CCC1113) That is why the Crucified suffered so greatly to redeem us from sin and not to leave us where we are as long as we give alms to the poor. It is all about us to come to participate in the Divine Nature being sanctified in the Sacraments “the power that comes forth from the Body of Christ” to be made holy because our Father in heaven is all-Holy. The bishops have altogether stopped to preach on chastity and purity. “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed.” (Gal 1:8). Let us therefore with confidence come to the throne of grace: that we may obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid.” (Heb 4:16) For He “Who being the Brightness of his glory, and the figure of his (holy) substance” (Heb 1:3) is loving and merciful. Come Lord Jesus!
To even talk of “Communion” in the context of the Church or in ecclesiology today like in this article is the result of the majority Catholics’ uncritical or blind reception of the misleading spin and hijacking of Vatican II ecclesiology during the 1985 Synod of Bishops. During this synod, a rewriting of Vatican II ecclesiology was made with this insistence and introduction by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) that “Communion” summarizes and synthesizes the Council’s theology of the Church when in fact in the text of the Council’s constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, this is provided by the “People of God.” “Communion” ecclesiology continued to stifle the empowerment of the laity. Proving that Church faith and life practice stem from theology, the conciliar “People of God” ecclesiology took the biblical portrait of the Church as God’s chosen people, a royal priesthood, which implies the priesthood of the laity, the baptismal – royal priesthood of the 99% of Church members who are to be served by (not as servants of, not even collaborators of, but as co-responsible with) the only 1% ordained – ministerial priesthood, all participating in the high priesthood of Christ. To be seen from the perspective of this priesthood of all the baptized, the 99%’s prayer, leadership, and service in society (secular world) and the Church can all be considered as the exercise of offering the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which are to be united to the perpetual memorial sacrifice of the Mass; priesthood in the Bible being understood as the service of offering sacrifice and of bridging God and people. Sadly until this time Vatican II’s teaching and insistence of rightly calling the ordained priests not as “priests” but as “presbyters” (meaning elders) has not taken root in Catholic vocabulary, thinking, and practice. This should have underlined the common priesthood of all, especially of the 99%. Think of the teaching about the sacrament of baptism. We’re taught that by it one becomes a child of God, a member of God’s family, a Church member, but becoming a (baptized-royal) priest (a pivotal Vatican II teaching) is forgotten and not taught. With Ratzinger’s maneuver at the 1985 Synod he successfully dismantled the conciliar ecclesiological focal emphasis on the laity while restoring the clericalist view and mindset of the Church. “Communion” ecclesiology with its background that is of a highly Tridentine (Council of Trent) clericalist theology and practice (Yves Congar called it “hierarchology” instead of “ecclesiology”) while indeed emphasizing the spiritual bond flowing from the Holy Trinity among all the baptized even as it and then stresses the primary place of the hierarchy in this set-up is actually intended to preserve the clericalism power and practice of the 1% ordained Catholics supplanting the intended reform of Vatican II with a “People of God” ecclesiology meant to emphasize and unleash the power of the 99% Catholics.
Thank you for points well made about “the People of God,” but what is to be done at this late hour when most of the (practicing?) laity and probably many of the storefront clergy (e.g., the German synodal debauchery) have barely an intuitive notion about what human reason or even the Catholic faith are really all about?
On this point, in addition to Ratzinger, at least one other German actually got it right! “There is nothing more frightening than a bustling ignorance” (Goethe, 1826).
I wish there was a website where I could sign up to be notified when the Catholic Church has returned to sanity, clarity, good order, and growing popularity and conversions, such as existed prior to “renewal” of the Vatican II Council. I’m tired of reading reports of the Church’s sickness, disorder, confusion, and decline. Couldn’t someone just wake me up when all the storm is over?