#Pastor aeternus

[gravehags]

in other news does anyone know where a bitch can find a credible english translation of vatican i from 1870 specifically pastor aeternus

*m*zon has one but it’s…say it with me now…an italian version. once again where the fuck is cardinal copia to explain the history of the church to me?

[gratefultothealmighty]

Pastor Aeternus and Papal Minimalism

[liberty1776]

I recently sent some questions to Cardinal Gerhard Müller regarding papal infallibility and the Cardinal’s recent words describing Pope Francis as having endorsed material heresy. The Cardinal was gracious enough to answer my questions in the following email exchange. How would you describe the nature of papal infallibility? Under what circumstances does papal infallibility apply? Cardinal Müller: The nature, conditions, and limits of papal infallibility as an expression of the infallibility of the whole Church are defined in Chapter 4 of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council (1870). With reference to the integration of the supreme authority in the … Continue reading →

[fredborges98]

Bom dia!

Por: Fred Borges

Faça parte do Clube de Leitura e receba artigos e capítulos do lançamento da minha autobiografia!

Contribuições mensais até dia 20 de cada mês.

CPF/ PIX: 42297729553

Banco: Itaú 341

Agência: 3888

CC: 22197-9

Frederico Vianna Borges

Anotações: Clube de Leitura.

Observação: Enviar comprovante simultaneamente para: 55.71.984010101 e fredborges98@gmail.com

Puer aeternus, puer, senex e a frágil e ambígua democracia brasileira.

Puer aeternus (às vezes abreviado para puer) é um termo do latim que significa "criança eterna".

Na mitologia, ele é uma " eterna criança" que é jovem para sempre.

Em psicologia, é uma pessoa adulta cuja vida emocional permaneceu em um nível adolescente, também conhecida como síndrome de Peter Pan.

O puer geralmente leva uma vida de provisão de suas fontes de energia, uma economia emocional, material, humana, devido ao medo de ficar preso em uma ou várias situações da qual ou das quais, pensa e tem mentalidade tal, não seja possível escapar.

Ele ou ela ansiaria ou desejaria por independência e liberdade, opõe-se a fronteiras e limites impostos e tende a considerar intolerável qualquer restrição.

Mas liberdade sem maturidade não se torna conquista, mas pura luxúria, futilidade, volubilidade, volatilidade, o ar que você não enxerga, mas sente, intangível, mas quando percebido, identificado, e pronto o sujeito, protagonista do trilhar e dedilhar do piano da vida, não só toca por meio de partituras, partidos, ideologias, doutrinas,dogmas, crenças, paradigmas, mas faz da liberdade pura essência do viver: agir,atuar, construir, desconstruir, formatar, desformatar, criar e inovar.( Vide o filme: Quase Deuses.)

Conquistas, como a liberdade, dão margem a interpretações da vida, interpretações nunca serão ecos, repetições, rezar o Terço e não praticá-lo, vivenciá-lo, ou falar em outras línguas que inexistem, para se fazer de melhor que outros semelhantes, o escolhido, pastor de " ovelhas desgarradas", agora batizadas, moduladas, lavadas em seus cérebros, do pensar, criticar, analisar e concluir.

Concluir por exemplo que não há ciência sem desafio, tentativa, risco, questionamento.

Preconceitos de todos os tipos devem ser vencidos para se ter a maturidade de conquistar e manter a liberdade, e isto demanda uma cultura e mentalidade eternamente aberta a mudanças, melhoras, evoluções, adaptações, paradoxos e métodos, metodologias, técnicas e teorias transdisciplinares, multi-facetadas, múltiplas habilidades e competências de aprender e ensinar, paralelos,e nunca fazer uso mental das transversais.

Do paralelismo: sintático, morfológico e semântico.

Das figuras sintáticas: Anáfora e Quiasmo.

Das figuras semânticas: Metáfora, Símele, Prosopopéia, Catacrese, Sinestesia e Eufemismo.

Domine as palavras ou elas te dominarão!

Liberdade é domínio de si, ontológico, autoconhecimento,dos limites, dos seus limites, dos limites mentais, intelectuais, emocionais, é aventura do desconhecido, é permitir-se, é explorar-se na melhor das conotações, digressões, evitando as agressões, ilusões, descaminhos, desvios que levem ao puer aeternus e aos demais.

O psiquiatra suíço Carl Gustav Jung desenvolveu uma escola de pensamento chamada psicologia analítica, distinguindo-se da psicanálise de Sigmund Freud.

Na psicologia analítica (muitas vezes chamada de "psicologia junguiana"), o puer aeternus é um exemplo do que Jung chama de arquétipo, um dos "elementos estruturais primordiais da psiquê humana".

O arquétipo antitético, oposto enantiodrômico ou sombra do puer é o senex (que em latim significa “homem velho”), associado ao deus Chronos, que representa o tempo que se move imutavelmente, sendo disciplinado, controlado, responsável, racional e ordeiro.

Por outro lado, a sombra do senex é o puer, associado a Hermes ou Dionísio, que representa o instinto desencadeado, a desordem, a embriaguez e o capricho.

A maturidade política dos brasileiros está evoluindo.

Por paradoxal que seja esta afirmação, a eleição de Lula da Silva representou o nível de maturidade política a que chegamos.

Evolução ou involução?

O país está dividido entre os "puer, aeternus" e os "senex" e o simplesmente "puer" de Hermes o Dionísio representando a desordem, intoxicação e os caprichos de todas naturezas humanas.

Esta bipolaridade política nos leva aos extremos!

E este é o maior dos problemas: a era dos extremos: fanatismo, extremismos de direita e da esquerda que fazem girar numa trajetória elíptica, eclipsando o progresso das ciências; exatas e humanas, tornando-as abertas a retórica demagógica, política, oportunista, leviana, repressora, que " aperta a mente" em bom baianês, e deixa espaço limitadíssimo ao pensar, mudar, e a própria liberdade com responsabilidade, reciprocidade, respeito a opinião alheia.

A ponto de, nesta dualidade, não sabermos o que é verdade ou mentira, sátira ou sarcasmo, ironia ou cinismo, e relatos hipócritas e demagógicos receberem o "selo" da fé pública, descrente das pessoas e das instituições.

Um caos, uma crise, sem precedentes, sem procedência comprovada, infelizmente restando a interpretação individual ou coletiva do fato pela mídia corrompida pelo poder efêmero econômico e financeiro da política.

Além disto tudo existe; o alienado, omisso, descomprometido em face de um homem tão consciente de sua existência, e da impossibilidade individual de mudar este inconsciente, inconsistente coletivo, solitário, depressivo, angustiado e ansioso, se suicida.

Triste e alegre é a contemporaneidade, vai aos extremos, mas não os vivência nem dor e nem amor e se entorpece com drogas lícitas e ilícitas para acordar, para dormir e para sonhar.

Definitivamente a liberdade não é raiz e fruto da natureza imatura.

Ela é batalha e guerra, quebra de uma promiscuidade tentadora do óbvio " ululante", dos seres prostituidos pela facilidade do dinheiro fácil, "o que vem fácil, vai fácil" e estado de entropia segue e persegue de fobias a humanidade.

[lawrenceop]

HOMILY for 7th Sun after Pentecost (Dominican rite)

Rom 6:19-23;  Matthew 7:15-21

All things are governed by the Providence of God, and even those things which seem like tragedies to us, those things that may disturb and trouble us, even these are merely permitted by God. And yet, because God is the Cause of all that is, and because God governs all things in his goodness, so he, who is the Lord of the Living and who is the Resurrection and the Life, can direct all of the world’s events and circumstances, even its disasters to the good. For God, in his Providence, is always at work in manifold ways that surpass our imagination and our lifespans even to bring good out of evil. Thus the Collect today affirms that God’s “providence does not fail in its designs.”

To many of us Christians, to say that God is in charge, might seem obvious. And yet, many Christians, many good Catholics too, can find it challenging and difficult to live out this statement of faith. For to say that God is in charge means to trust in his Providence and so to believe that he wisely governs all things at all times. God doesn’t ever take his eye off the ball! And this means that we believe that God is at work to bring about a greater good even out of the evils that we have to endure in our lives, in our times, or, even, within the Church. But God does this according to his timescale, and in his inscrutable ways which remain mysterious to us. As such, to believe in God’s providence, in his on-going governance and direction of all human history, is an act of faith.

Fittingly, then, one of the newest popular devotions promoted by the Church, to the Divine Mercy, has as its slogan, “Jesus, I trust in you.” For we are called in our difficult times to keep our focus on God, and to trust in his Providence. As St Faustina has said: “I run like a child to the Heart of Jesus and say only one word to Him: “You can do all things.” And then I keep silent, because I know that Jesus Himself will intervene in the matter, and as for me, instead of tormenting myself, I use that time to love Him.”

Thus, as I have noted often before in these homilies, the question for our times as the Lord says in the Gospels is: when he returns will he find any faith on earth? (cf Lk 18:8) You might think that this refers to the numbers of signed-up Christians. But I think the question, being directed towards God’s chosen ones, is a question for the Church, for you and for me: do we have faith in God, especially in the face of injustice and terror in the world, which will surely increase as the time for the Second Coming draws ever closer. Do we believe that, despite the apparent disasters and tragedies in the moral and temporal orders, God is in charge, such that, as St Augustine says, “Almighty God would in no wise permit evil to exist in His works, unless He were so almighty and so good as to produce good even from evil.” The question for our times, therefore, is whether or not we believe and trust and can abandon ourselves to the good and wise governance of God. Can we affirm with our actions and with our words and with our prayer that God’s providence does not ever fail?

For St Thomas Aquinas teaches that “all things are subject to divine providence, not only in general, but even in their own individual selves.” Even “human providence is included under the providence of God [and] God… extends His providence over the just in a certain more excellent way than over the wicked; inasmuch as He prevents anything happening which would impede their final salvation.” If this is true – as indeed it is – then God has a particular care for the governance of the Church, for those of us who remain in the Barque of Peter, for God’s providence guides his one holy catholic and apostolic Church to its final salvation. It has long been the belief of Christians that, precisely so as to safeguard the Christian people and to lead them to salvation, God has provided for his Church and governs her, particularly through the office and ministry of the Papacy.

It is fitting, it seems to me, to consider the providence of God in this regard. For yesterday, the 18th of July 2020, was the 150th anniversary of Pastor Aeternus. This is the dogmatic constitution of the First Vatican Council that, among other things, defined the doctrine of papal infallibility. It would be good for us all to reacquaint ourselves with this teaching from Vatican I, and it’s a short document, easily available online. A few extracts, pertaining to God’s providence and governance of his Church through the papacy, are worth highlighting now.

“That which our Lord Jesus Christ… established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever [so that the Church] will stand firm until the end of time… And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church… This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”

In the light of all this, therefore, and with faith in God’s providence and designs, and trusting in God’s promises to St Peter and his successors, let us hear again the words of Our Lord in today’s Gospel: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Mt 7:15) Many people today, it seems to me, are cast adrift by confusion and fake news; by internet Inquisitors and social media Doctors who trade in speculation and gossip and rumour; by seemingly learned opinions and accusations, even from clerics, which are levelled against the Holy Father, and against the papacy in recent years or even in recent decades. These other voices, therefore, have arisen to command the attention of segments of the Catholic people, seeking to shepherd them in these current difficult times, and they do so by speaking against the Pope, thus introducing confusion and the tendency to schism that Vatican I warned against. As the Lord says: “you will know them by their fruits”, and it seems clear to me that what is being sown is a spirit of protestantism that is antithetical to the true Catholic faith laid out so fully by Vatican I.

I know that many have been wounded in the Church through the malfeasance and negligence of the clergy, and so there is sometimes distrust for one’s legitimate pastors. But, as you may know, the wounded sheep are often separated from the flock and then they become dinner for the wolves – they are, all to easily, prey to false prophets, and become victims of those who stir up dissension and schism and separation from the papacy. The Devil rejoices to see such confusion and disunity among Christ’s flock! Therefore, turn away from these alternative magisteria, from these other voices who would command your loyalty, from these false prophets who would turn you against the Vicar of Christ on earth! For when one is wounded one must stay close to Christ the Chief Shepherd and divine Physician. One must thus stay close to the shepherd whom Christ himself has appointed and guaranteed, as Pastor Aeternus taught. And we do this not because  of our personal feelings concerning the Holy Father, but because we have faith in the promises of Christ. Hence I said the question for our times is: do you have faith that God is in charge? Do we really believe in the wisdom and goodness of God and his governance of all things? For God in his providence, and in his governance of his holy Church, has promised to safeguard the papacy for the sake of our salvation. There is none other than St Peter and his Successors to whom the Lord Jesus has given this promise. No supposed mystic, nor private revelations, nor even messages purportedly from the Blessed Mother can displace the solemn promises of Christ revealed in Scripture and Tradition. Hence, the First Vatican Council declared: “This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.”

Today’s Liturgy, and this occasion of the 150th anniversary of Pastor Aeternus, calls you and me, therefore, to place our faith in God’s wise but mysterious providence; to trust that Christ governs his Church through the Successor of St Peter, and that the Holy Spirit thus directs God’s elect to their final good, that is to say, to salvation in Christ. Let no one, therefore, depart from Christ,  nor from his Vicar on earth, our Holy Father the Pope, without thereby endangering one’s faith and salvation through the chaos of schism, through rebellion and disunity, and through the failure of charity.

[bergoglionate]

Ma il Papa è eretico: sì o no? Il prof. Radelli spiega i limiti e invita ad andare alle radici del problema.

Ma il Papa è eretico: sì o no? Il prof. Radelli spiega i limiti e invita ad andare alle radici del problema.

Cari Amici, a “Reti unificate” con il sito cooperatoresVeritatis, ed in procinto di diradare sempre più gli articoli in vista della pausa estiva (per tornare a pieno regime, a Dio piacendo, dopo il 25 agosto), vogliamo offrirvi un testo che certamente è lungo, per gli standard di un sito o di un blog, ma che di questo argomento non se ne sa mai abbastanza lo dice il momento critico e confuso che…

[caprano]

Streiflicht

(SZ) Die Katholische Kirche gleicht einem alten verwinkelten Gebäude, worin nicht nur die Gläubigen und ihre Hirten hausen, sondern auch die Geister, die sich im Lauf zweier Jahrtausende angesammelt haben. Klopft man etwas stärker an dies Gehäuse, erwacht der eine oder andere Geist und flattert für eine Weile aufgeregt hin und her. Eben jetzt rüttelt man wieder von allen Seiten heftig an dem Bauwerk, und prompt hat man eines der seltsamsten Gespenster aufgescheucht. Es handelt sich um das von der Unfehlbarkeit, das zwar auch schon recht alt ist, das es amtlich aber erst seit Verkündung der dogmatischen Konstitution "Pastor Aeternus" (Der ewige Hirte) von 1870 gibt. Dieser Tage hat es den Chefredakteur der Passauer Neuen Presse (PNP) heimgesucht, der seinerseits der ewige Hirte der dortigen Kommentierung ist. Dass Benedikt, so schrieb er, in einer zentralen Frage die Unwahrheit gesagt habe, sei "für einen Stellvertreter Christi auf Erden, der sich auf eine angebliche Unfehlbarkeit berufen kann, keine Kleinigkeit".

Listiger wurde mit dem Begriff der Unfehlbarkeit schon lange nicht mehr operiert. Zum einen wird durch das Beiwort "angeblich" suggeriert, dass die päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit eine Art Gerücht sei, jedenfalls etwas Unbewiesenes oder zumindest schwer Beweisbares, vielleicht sogar etwas Anrüchiges oder überhaupt nicht Existentes. Zum anderen wird ausgerechnet dieses dubiose Phantom zum Zeugen dafür aufgerufen, dass Benedikts Aussage zu Jahre zurückliegenden Vorgängen ein gravierender Fehler gewesen sei. Wäre man nicht davon überzeugt, dass der Mann von der PNP den Kern der Unfehlbarkeitsdoktrin sehr wohl kennt, müsste man annehmen, er gehöre zum Kreis derer, die beim Dogma von der "Infallibilität" ähnlich ins Trudeln geraten wie bei dem von der unbefleckten Empfängnis.

So wenig wie dieses mit Jesu Zeugung zu tun hat, so wenig soll mit jenem gesagt werden, dass Päpste sich nicht irren können. Sie können das, und wie! Zum Beispiel Urban VIII.: Er wandte sich gegen Galileis Behauptung, dass die Erde sich um die Sonne dreht, und kann von Glück reden, dass er seine Meinung nicht in den Rang eines Dogmas erhoben hat. Als unfehlbar gelten Päpste nur, wenn sie als Hüter der Lehre eine Glaubens- oder Sittenfrage als endgültig entschieden verkünden. Diese Unfehlbarkeit wird theologisch dadurch abgesichert, dass man hinter solchen Entscheidungen den anerkannt irrtumsfreien Heiligen Geist als "Letztgaranten" vermutet. Es ist unter Theologen aber auch unstrittig, dass die Unfehlbarkeit "kein Urteil über den moralischen oder intellektuellen Status der Subjekte" darstellt. Mit den Subjekten sind die Päpste gemeint, von denen Benedikts Weggefährte, der Theologe Wolfgang Beinert, sagt, sie seien "vor Lügen nicht gefeit". Sie können ihnen aber auch, wie wir alle, aus dem Weg gehen.

[spiritualdirections]

Can John Paul II’s sainthood be cancelled?

The editors of the National Catholic Reporter have asked that the cult of John Paul II be suppressed for his role in the appointment of Theodore McCarrick to be Archbishop of Washington, DC. This comes in the light of the “McCarrick report” last week. 

Some people think that the Church’s canonizations are infallible acts, declaring infallibly that the canonized is a saint in heaven. In which case, what the NCR editors are asking would be impossible. 

But that’s not actually the Church’s teaching. It is possible to remove a canonized saint’s public cult. However, the NCR editors haven’t come close to making that case. (Deep dive below the break.)

Infallibility only applies to matters that are part of the deposit of faith or directly implied by the deposit of faith. Cardinal Avery Dulles, in his book Magisterium (p. 78), points out that whether or not such-and-such a person who lived after the death of the last apostle is in heaven--that’s not in either category. He then cites the conclusion of a Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue (in which he had participated):

32.  The  theological  manuals  of  recent  generations  rather  commonly  hold that  solemn  canonizations  of saints,  as contained  in papal  decretal  letters, are infallible. The tradition in favor of infallibility in the matter has been traced back at least to the time of Thomas Aquinas, but there are genuine difficulties  in seeing how canonizations fall within the object of  papal  infallibility  as taught  by Vatican I  or Vatican II. Certainly, the virtues  of  particular  persons  of  postbiblical  times,  and  their  present  situation  before  God,  can  scarcely  be  reckoned  as  part  of  the  apostolic  deposit of faith. If one looks on revelation as having become complete in Christ, holiness may reasonably be seen as a concrete way of living, in a given  culture,  the  saving  truth  revealed  in  Christ.  The  Church has  the  power to recognize  authentic  Christian holiness, yet  canonization would not seem  of its  nature to  convey  infallible  certitude  that  the holiness in question was actually present in the life of this or that historical person.

Here are the relevant parts of Vatican I and II on the “object of infallibility”: Vatican I’s Dei Filius ch. 4, par.13

“For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed... has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted”

and Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4, par.6

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles”; 

and most importantly Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium #25: 

“This infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.”

In an excellent article in Nova et Vetera 17:3, William Diem, after surveying the theological tradition, concludes that canonizations hold a middle position between merely disciplinary/liturgical decrees and infallible teaching. The Church infallibly declares that, based on what we know about a person’s moral life and about the miracles attributed to that person’s intercession, the canonized person is a saint deserving of a public cult. The infallibility extends to what’s publicly known--assuming that there’s nothing we don’t know that would change the answer, what we do know establishes that this person’s life is worthy of imitation and is an example of what has been handed down about holiness from the deposit of faith. For instance, you can’t point to the penitential practices of a canonized saint and say, “this guy is not holy because of his penitential practices.” Saint Bonaventure, in defending the Franciscan view of poverty, pointed out that saints in the past had been canonized while publicly taking vows of poverty, and so taking vows of poverty was infallibly declared by the Church to be compatible with holiness. 

However, if there’s something not publicly known about the person (some secret sin) or if the witnesses to either  the miracles or the moral life of the canonized are in some way mistaken, then the canonized person might not actually be in heaven. If the canonized is in heaven, then asking for his or her intercession makes abundant sense. If the canonized not in heaven, then our prayers for intercession are misdirected, and a public cult is not in order.

It’s that last part which (if we’re charitably assuming the NCR editors are theologically on top of the status questionis) gives their argument some purchase. So, is there anything that we learned in the McCarrick Report that 1) was not publicly known about Pope John Paul II at the time of his canonization and that 2) disqualifies him from being in heaven? I don’t think so, for more or less the reasons that George Weigel outlines here: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/11/theodore-mccarrick-not-john-paul-ii-is-the-story-of-the-mccarrick-report

The report on pp. 149-192, goes into detail about what was being said about then Archbishop McCarrick before his appointment to DC. Basically, nobody had anything more than rumors about any sexual impropriety. Nothing was on the record. Cardinal John O’Connor of New York desperately didn’t want McCarrick to succeed him as Archbishop, and so his passing along the rumors to the Pope was probably discounted for the reason that he wasn’t objective about McCarrick for other reasons. The reports says (p. 179 fn 593) that it was important to the pope that the Archbishop of Washington be politically savvy, which McCarrick was, and it seems that was his major qualification for the post. Major figures in the Church investigated McCarrick’s moral life and didn’t find anything to disqualify him, and told the Pope that. The report says (p. 173 fn 580) that the pope believed that people often used rumors of sexual misconduct to discredit figures in the Church--indeed the Communists in Poland tried to discredit him by planting evidence of an affair in his apartment. In the US, Cardinal Joseph Bernadin of Chicago was falsely accused of sexual abuse--the putative victim later recanted. 

Since John Paul II didn’t have anything more than rumors to discredit McCarrick, rumors that his own experience told him not to trust, he eventually decided to appoint him. Since the rumors about McCarrick had already been investigated, it was decided that they didn’t need to be investigated again. That last, procedural decision not to repeat the work already done by others, is what the NCR editors think means that John Paul II isn’t in heaven. As if not doing redundant paperwork is a mortal sin. 

To be fair to their editorial, what they are insinuating is that the procedural decision reveals something that was not known at the time of the canonization: that John Paul II didn’t care about the sexual abuse of minors: “John Paul, in many ways an admirable man, was willfully blind to the abuse of children and young people.” In which case, not de-canonizing him would be an infallible declaration that the Church doesn’t care about the abuse of minors! But that’s pretty thin, for at least three reasons: 1) The report explicitly undermines their uncharitable interpretation by providing context; 2) the pope did take action against clerical abuse when he grasped the scope of the problem; and 3) John Paul II’s handling of the sex abuse crisis was something already known and discussed before his canonization. 

If Thomas Aquinas is right that it’s an act of piety to trust the Church’s canonizations (pie credendum est), the NCR editorial is, simply put, impious.

[anderseeds]

I really like the parallel of Alucard being a dog of Hellsing and Anderson being a dog of the church (albeit, a willing one). I also never really see anyone talk about this particular parallel and the abuse and indoctrination that accompanies both, so I want to make a post about it!

Being part of a religion often comes with wanting to be told what to do, wanting to be part of something bigger, and wanting to serve, so mindless servitude and self-worth tied into their religion was always going to be present in the zealots of Iscariot, but it seems to be taken even further with Anderson. His lack of regard for his emotional and physical well-being is beyond that of the other Iscariot’s and is also enabled and encouraged by the Vatican. In the manga, Anderson regards himself as nothing but the Church’s ‘meat cleaver’; in the OVA, it’s a knife, and his superiors are similarly comfortable using terms like ‘trump card’ to refer to Anderson, which strip him of anything but how he can be utilised for benefit of the Church. I imagine it’s not hard to reduce Anderson to this when he’s the resident powerhouse science experiment. When Integra calls Anderson a ‘thing’ or a ‘monster’ because of his enhancements, Anderson doesn’t even disagree; that’s how bad it is. He heavily dehumanises himself and the Vatican participates in that. Particularly during the final fight, where they give him an item they know will destroy him so he can become their greatest weapon.

When Anderson uses the nail in Volume 8, he exhibits no hesitation or doubt that he should. This is in part because grief made this an easy sacrifice to make (hence the desire to become something that can’t feel pain), but also in big part because - as already established - he’s simply never been told to value himself beyond how he can best serve God and the Church. Why would he hesitate or doubt when the Church gave him the Nail specifically so Anderson could become their greatest weapon? They knew full well what it would do to him and they didn’t care. They didn’t care how it would ravage his humanity; they didn’t care that he would be leaving his children behind; they didn’t care that he had the potential to survive and spend the rest of his life being this mindless beast of a creature, so it’s not surprising at all that he didn’t care enough about himself to hesitate. On the less extreme side of things, in Volume 4 we see that the Church is also comfortable sending Anderson to do things he doesn’t want to do, that are beneath his abilities and border on humiliating. 

I feel the only time Anderson would refuse to do something for the Church is if it’s blatantly an affront to God, and then God’s word supersedes his superiors. Even the pope, with Pastor aeternus, doesn’t allow for complete infallibility (granted, I’m not sure if Anderson would actually oppose a direct order from the Pope). The one time he doesn’t obey the Church is far from a show of complete independent thought, however, since he specifically puts himself through the agony of killing someone he loves out of a sense of obligation. And it is a sense of obligation, because he could have simply apprehended Maxwell and let the law deal with him, but that’s not something he’s been taught to do; he’s only been taught to deal with enemies of God through destructive means, so Maxwell had to die. I think it’s very telling that immediately after this he practically begs the other Iscariot’s to retreat and goes off on a mission he outright says will kill him. Not that his own death was something guaranteed, but it was clearly something he wanted.

Anderson might be happy at Iscariot, but there’s something to be said for the indoctrination inherent in his role. A person doesn’t become what Anderson is on their own; they’re made this way. He’s been taught to heel, and he’s been taught nothing supersedes serving the Church and God, and he’s been taught that he has no worth beyond that, and he’s been taught that these things are something appropriate to teach other people, and it ultimately led to him throwing his life away for nothing. His situation really is a great, if painful parallel to how Alucard currently is, because they’re both really broken in this regard. They’re two people who could understand each other well if they put the hostility aside long enough to have a proper talk.

Anyway, it really makes you wonder what would have happened in the end if he’d had more self-worth and independence. 

Some more thoughts below!

Getting into headcanon territory, I think Anderson was raised at Ferdinant Lukes and has never lived outside this Catholic community, nor ventured outside of Rome without direction of the Church, so he’s never had the opportunity to develop an identity that doesn’t rely heavily on his religion and his worth to the church. I feel like if he was ever taken out this environment, he’d struggle to adjust to the ‘real world’ because he’s used to his entire life being laid out for him. 

The more I think about this, the more I’d love to write a fic or something where Anderson and Alucard have to work through their indoctrination and learn to be fully realised people beyond their organisations.

[cooperatoresveritatisinfo]

Rinuncia Benedetto XVI. “Decuit, potuit, fecit.” Dio poteva farlo, quindi lo fece?

Rinuncia Benedetto XVI. “Decuit, potuit, fecit.” Dio poteva farlo, quindi lo fece?

Nostra piccola premessa: non condividiamo totalmente la seguente teoria che lasceremo a voi di meditare, a seguire… tuttavia è una analisi molto interessante che dimostra la serietà del problema, la mole di domande che tale Rinuncia ha suscitato molte delle quali, però, non possono risolversi nelle teorie esposte dall’autore del testo che andremo a leggere.

Per esempio: “Dio poteva farlo, quindi…

[anticattocomunismo]

Il ricatto dell’obbedienza

L’obbedienza è una virtù esimia, ma ha un limite invalicabile: il peccato. (more…)

[tradicionalistabrasil]

"O pastor Eterno e Bispo das nossas almas (cf 1 Pd 2, 25), para perpetuar a obra salutar da Redenção, decidiu constituir a Santa Igreja, onde, como na casa do Deus vivo, todos os fiéis estivessem unidos pelo vínculo da mesma Fé e da Caridade." [cf. Constituição Pastor Aeternus, FC 7.002]

[chocolatesuitcasefestivalcop]

L’ufficio del successore di Pietro non consiste nel rivelare qualche nuova dottrina, ma nel per custodire con scrupolo e per far conoscere con fedeltà il deposito di fede trasmesso dagli apostoli (v. Costituzione dogmatica Pastor aeternus, cap. 4) Fin da molte passate generazioni regna nella vita della Chiesa una sorta di “papo-centrismo” o di “papolatria” che è senza dubbio eccessiva se paragonata con la visione moderata e soprannaturale della persona del Papa e la venerazione a lui dovuta, com’era in passato. Un simile atteggiamento eccessivo verso la persona del Papa genera nella pratica un significato teologico eccessivo ed errato riguardo al dogma dell’infallibilità papale. Se il Papa dicesse a tutta la Chiesa di fare qualcosa che danneggiasse direttamente una verità divina immutabile o un comandamento divino, ogni cattolico avrebbe il diritto di correggerlo, col dovuto rispetto, mosso da riverenza e amore per la sacra funzione, e per la persona del Papa. La Chiesa non è proprietà privata del Papa. Il Papa è solo il Vicario, non il successore di Cristo. #verità #Gesù #PapaFrancesco #fede https://www.instagram.com/p/B-UovL4j3L2/?igshid=8eru3majz4lq

[jloisse]

« L’Esprit-Saint, en effet, n’a pas été promis aux successeurs de Pierre pour dévoiler, par son inspiration, une nouvelle doctrine, mais pour qu’avec son assistance ils gardent saintement et exposent fidèlement la Révélation transmise par les Apôtres, c’est-à-dire le Dépôt de la Foi. » (Pie IX, Const. Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I, Sess. IV Ch. IV, Dz. 1836).

[brianestine]

A Need for the Papacy and its Infallibility

I. Introduction

Over the past 2000 years of Christianity there have always been disputes over whether or not certain doctrines were in fact part of what the Catholic Church taught. In the 3rd century A.D. there was Arianism, the belief that Christ was less than fully divine, and more recently in the 19th and 20th century there was modernism, the belief that doctrine can continually change and evolve from what it initially was just as the human species supposedly did. Papal Infallibility however, has always worked against heresies like these and promoted the true doctrine of the Catholic Church. Nothing can be said against Papal infallibility that’s not in some way against the Catholic Church herself, for Papal Infallibility is a crucial part of the foundation of the Catholic Church. We rely on papal infallibility to guide us in many ways. The doctrine of papal infallibility is a legitimate Catholic Doctrine that ensures the realities of the Christian faith, and establishes a necessary teaching authority amongst the Catholic Church.

II. Definiton

In order for one to understand why there is a strong need for Papal Infallibility one must first understand what Papal Infallibility actually is. The earliest and most prominent definition of Papal Infallibility was at Vatican I in the year 1870. At this council the Apostolic Constitution on the Church that dealt with the issue was titled Pastor Aeternus1 and it stated

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. 2

There had been mention of Papal authority prior, but this seemed to mark when the belief doctrine became clear. The church earlier seemed to accept what the Pope taught on good faith

as he was the head of the Church. There are four things mentioned within the Pastor Aeternus that are necessary for something said by the Pope to match the description of Papal Infallibility.

A. Four Criteria

The first criterion listed is that it must be done by “virtue of his office… as Supreme Pontiff.” This means that he has to be working as the Pope when he addresses the issue. If there is a book written by the Pope, that is not meant to be part of his teaching authority, but rather comes from him as theologian, it does not necessarily have to be held as doctrine. A good example of this would be Pope Benedict’s book Jesus of Nazareth.3 While he was Pope when he wrote this book, he did not mean for it to be written from the “virtue of his office.” While the book may contain statements that are infallible doctrine, the mere fact that the statements are written within the book does not necessarily mean it is infallible doctrine. The book is only meant to explain the Pope’s logical conclusions regarding the nature of Christ. He may very well be wrong on certain matters.

The second criterion for Papal infallibility would be that the Pope must be acting as teacher of all the Christian faithful. For example, if the Pope says something in private, it does not necessarily have to be held as Catholic doctrine. Much like something written outside of his position of Supreme Pontiff, it is not necessarily free of error. There have been a few Popes that have actually held and preached beliefs that were later considered to be heretical, but never addressed such issues to the entire Catholic Church in a manner that was Infallible.

Likewise, the third criterion is that he must be speaking on a matter that is involving faith and morals. This would mean that what the Pope says about scientific facts should not be held as infallible doctrine. The Pope, will not likely ever be able to say with infallible certainty that

Einstein’s theory of relativity is positively true for the matter doesn’t concern faith or morals. Science may tell us something similar, but the Pope, himself, merely speaking from his office will never be able to do such. However, such cases as Humane Vitae4 where Pope Paul VI makes moral and faith based claims regarding the origins of life, are to be held as infallible since they involve faith and morals.

Finally, the fourth criterion is that it must be done by definitive act in a way that is manifestly evident. This means that the Doctrine defined by the Pope must clearly be addressed as a doctrine or stated to be a doctrine in a way that is obvious. In many Papal documents the Pope makes known matters regarding faith and morals, but he must actually address the fact that a certain doctrine is to be held, or it must be excessively implied for it to be infallible. When one finds themselves in doubt as to whether a certain statement is meant to be taken as infallible he should subject it to a certain manner of scrutiny. While ideally the Infallible statements are meant to be clear, the language in which the Pope uses is not always language we are familiar with.

B. Define Magisterium

Once all four of these criteria are meant there are two types of Infallibility that the Pope may exercise, the Ordinary Magisterium or the Extraordinary Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium takes place on a day to day basis from within the Church’s normal activities. Segments of Encyclicals are considered to be part of the Ordinary Magisterium. If an Encyclical makes a statement that follows the four criteria given, it is to be held as Infallible. Pope Pius XII clarifies this clearly in quote given from Humani Generis.

It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16);

Often times its felt that an encyclical can be ignored since there has been so many over the history of the Church, Yet the general tone of Pius XII seems very clear. If it is written in certainty in an Encyclical then it must be the case. If one takes these words as an act of the Magisterium, which they are, the despute seems clearly resolved. Further on in the same qoute Pius XII argues that once the Pope has made a statement it cant be argued.

But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.5

Therefore if one accepts the words of Pope Pius XII, they will find that they cannot argue from a theological perspective against something that is already defined. To do so would be to act out of heresy. This also applies to the Extroadinary Magisterium. The difference between the Extroadinary Magisterium and the Ordinary, however, is that within the extroadinary Magisterium, the Pope speaks in a way that is much more solemn than the Ordinary Magisterium. This takes places at ecumenical councils or within solemn proclamations. Both are infallible in so long as they follow the criteria already mentioned, but the extraordinary expresses itself in a way that is a little bit more manifesting and clear.

III. Mistakes in interpretation

A. Interpretation of Universal or Ordianry Magisterium

A major problem within the Church is that people either mistakenly or intentionally doubt the credibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. One of the most frustratingly key examples is The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. When Pope John Paul II wrote his apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, claiming that the Church had never been given the authority to

ordain women, 6 there were those that objected to it. In response to this there was a text written by Cardinal Ratzinger, at the time, as Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, saying that what John Paul II said was to be held as infallible based on the fact that it was coming from the ordinary magisterium. The writers of the Commentary of the Code of Canon Law however felt the need to question Cardinal Ratzinger’s words and perhaps also Pope John Paul II’s, by stating that the Ordinary Magisterium is not necessarily Infallbile.”

the statement by the CDF [Cardinal Ratzinger as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] of October 28, 1995, that the teaching to the effect that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women requires the definitive assent of the faithful since `it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium' is an exaggeration7

The problem with this belief however is that Canon Law directly contradicts it. In canon 750, directly following the canon that defines Papal infallibility, it clearly states “Those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith… as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium…”8 Therefore either one must accept the rules of Canon Law, and the words of Pope Pius XII or reject most doctrine ever taught by the Catholic Church.

B. Interpretation of “Ex Cathedra”

A specification that should also be made, however, is that not all infallibility is “Ex Cathedra” in the completely literal sense. The term “Ex Cathedra” literally means “from the chair.” Initially the expression was used to refer to a bishop’s chair in a local community, but over time people have started using it synonymously with Papal Infallibility. If one is referring to

the Chair in the figurative sense, this is correct. In fact, the document Pastor Aeternus refers to it as Ex Cathedra. The Chair of St. Peter is the figurative term for where Saint Peter receives his Papal Infallibility. Pastor Aeternus specifies that it is not literally the chair by saying “the Roman Pontiff speaks Ex Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority.” 9 The pope is the Successor of St. Peter, but if one uses it literally as in referring to solemn proclamations made by the Pope while he was literally sitting in the Chair of St Peter in St. Peter’s Basilica, he would not be referring to all infallible claims. Rather there have only been two cases of doctrine that may be classified as “Ex Cathedra” in this manner. These would be the Marian doctrines regarding the Immaculate Conception and The Annunciation. 10 If solely literal “Ex Cathedra” doctrines were Infallible, then, practically speaking, this would mean the only thing Catholics can state with infallible certainty is that Mary was born free without sin, and later had an Angel appear to her. We would have to doubt all of the Churches councils over history defying certain aspects of Christ’s nature as God or the ethics taught in encyclicals like Humanae Vitae. In which case, there would not seem to be any definitive reason to follow the Catholic Church, for it would never specify that one is actually supposed to do such out of conscience.

IV. Arguments Against Papal Infallibility

Having established what Papal Infallibility is, there are arguments often placed against it. The first argument is that it is biblically fallible since Christ was the only mediator to man11 and that the Papacy, by its very nature is actually a blasphemy against Christ. The attitude behind the this argument can best be summed up by a quote from Blessed John Henry Newman in his stage

as an Anglican. “When Religion is reduced in all its parts to a system, there is a hazard of something earthly being made the chief object of our contemplation instead of our maker. Now Rome classifies our duties and their rewards… and things become a matter of calculation. ”12 The problem with this however is that Peter, was given the power to give plenary indulgences and other things. This was established by Christ, “whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven.” 13 Peter was not chosen by the crowds or himself to be leader of the new Christian faith. He cannot be accused of this kind of blasphemy. Rather Christ told him to lead it when he gave him the keys. As Cardinal Journet made clear in his book Theology of the Church,14 If one looks towards history they will find no such thing, rather Christ told Peter “Simon, son of John tend my sheep… It is not you, who have chosen me, but I who have chosen you.”

2 .Pope Does not Invent doctrine

Another reason why Protestants would be wrong in claiming the Papacy is blasphemy is that the Pope does not actually invent Doctrine. Rather he only defends that which has already been revealed. This may seem to be the same matter to some, since not all things are initially known, that is not the case. There is nothing said by the Pope that does not have its foundation in Christ. He is merely thee most credible human interpreter of the Holy Spirit. Protestants cannot say they are guilty of no less blasphemy when they assume the Holy Spirit guides them in interpreting Revelation correctly, for that is exactly what the Pope does. The last of public of revelation died of with the 12 apostles. The Catholic Church does not deny this like the Church of Latter day Saints. While there are doctrines that can be said to be new, since they were not

understood in earlier times, they are not actually new, because all doctrines defined were true prior to their own promulgation. The way in which skeptics doubt this, actually suggests that they may be doubting the abilities of the Holy Spirit to an extent. Journet states “We do not say the Magisterium is above the word of God, but above the interpretations that men give to the Word… We do not ask if God understands scripture better than we, but if Calvin understands Scripture better than St. Augustine or St. Cyprian.” 15

1. Biblical Support

Despite the fact that the Supreme Pontiff is considered to be an unbiblical idea there is a significant amount of biblical support that suggest otherwise. As mentioned just before, the Pope gave Peter the power bound on earth what is bound in Heaven, but with this belief however is that there is strong biblical support for the Roman Pontiff. This can all be summed up Christ’s very words in Mathew 16:18-19 as many Catholics know.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the

gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

What Jesus means here is absolutely foundational to the Catholic Church. He is calling Peter a rock because He wants to build his Church on a rock, and He wants that Rock to be Peter. By building, he means he is giving an authoritative foundation. The Pope, as the successor of Saint Peter carries this role, Likewise, he also posses the keys to the kingdom by protecting revelation that is instrumental towards reaching salvation.

Many Protestants have argued against this interpretation of Rock, but if one examines the languages the Bible was written in, it is even more clearly understood. For example if one accepts that the Bible was initially written in Greek, when Jesus calls Peter “Petros” he is using

the masculine Greek version of Peter’s name, but later on when He says upon this “petra” He is using the feminine word for rock thus suggesting a play on words. When he uses the term “this” Rock, Jesus is clearly stating that by this feminine rock, he is referring to Peter, Petros. If one were to take a modern understanding of this they could translate it to, you are “Rocky, and upon this rock I will build my temple.” Even then the language suggests that Christ was very much aware that he was making a play on words. If one was, however to reject that the Bible was written in Greek and to accept the few claims that state that the Bible was written in Aramaic, he would have to notice that the word Ke'pha' is used twice exactly in the same spelling. The text would then translate you are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my temple, which is much more clearly suggesting that Christ built his Church on Peter. Either one however is very clearly suggesting that Christ built His Church on Peter. 16

A. A need for A Pope, not just Sola Scriptura

The second argument placed against the Pope is that a Pope simply is not needed as the Holy Spirit is our guide to scripture and the Bible is our only foundation. The reason why this argument against Papal infallibility, that is that a Pope is not needed, is wrong however is that the Catholic Church could not really be a firm set of beliefs without it. We do not believe in a Bible based Church like the Protestants do, rather we believe in a faith based Bible. Even the list of books in the Bible had to be assembled by Pope Damasus I at the Council of Rome in AD 382. Protestants should realize that it was a Catholic Council that allowed for them to know which books of the Bible they should accept. While they do not recognize Papal Infallibility as necessary, you find that the fact that there are so many disputes that take place within their sects to be the best testimony for Papal Infallibility. If we rejected Papal Infallibility we would have a

constant shift in rules and ideas. Virtually the Catholic Church would look like any other church. If doctrine were to shift then there would be no need to protect it, which is exactly what the Pope does. As said before He protects doctrine by interpreting what’s already been presented in revelation. This is an important task. Protestants, without the guidance of the Holy Father are constantly finding new ideas. Ideas behind the rapture that were not believed not until recently are clear examples of this problem. Within the Catholic Church there is still room for debate on certain issues, but other issues have definitely been defined. This is part of what gives the Catholic Church so much strength.

VII Conclusion

While the Papacy and Papal Infallibility has been seen as a controversial matter for Catholics to defend, it really is absolutely necessary. People will criticize it for being a presumption based on man’s word, but to assume that God would not leave us with any guidance to his teachings seems even more extreme. We need a guide to help us. Without such we are lost. Our belief in a Vicar of Christ can be seen in biblical passages and historical context. Really, as Christians, we should all rejoice in what Christ has done for us by establishing the gift of Papal Infallibility. Amongst which there may be many disputes in regards to when the Pope is even exercising Papal Infallibility, but the ability to know is amazing in itself. While there is quite evidently confusion amongst theologians there is no contradictions in the actual teaching office of the Church. This is what makes the Catholic Church strong.

Bibliography Augustus Bernhard Hassler, How the Pope Became Infallible. New York: Doubleday &Company, 1981.Avery Dulles, The Catholicity of the Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.Avery Dulles, Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith. Ave Maria University, Naples: Sapienta Press, 2007.Cardinal Charles Journet, The Church of the World Incarnate. Translated by A.H.C Downes.San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.Cardinal Charles Journet, Theology of the Church. Translated by Victor Szczurek, O Praem.New York: Sheed and Ward, 1995.Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1996.Canon Law Society of America, Code of Canon Law. Washington, DC: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983.Commentary to the Code of Canon Law. Edited by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas Green. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2000.Congregation of Doctrine of Faith, Donum Veritatis. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1 9900524_theologian-vocation_en.html.Congregation of Doctrine of Faith, “On Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.” http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df95os.htm.--- Dogmatic Constitution. Pastor Aeternus. http://fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html.John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. 2012, London: Longmans, Green and CO, 1909. http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html.John Trijilio, “A Discussion of Infallibility.” http://www.ewtn.com/library/ DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM.Michael Miller, The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the Papacy. Huntington, Indianna: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1995.Pope Benedict 16th, Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Double Day, 2007.Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp- ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html.Pope Paul VI, Humane Vitae. July 25, 1968. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_pvi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html.Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium. November 21, 1964. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Letter. Ineffabilis Deus. Http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm, http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye1.htm.Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xI/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.html.Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter. Humani Generis. Http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html.Dr. Robert J Schihl and Paul D Flanagan, Catholic Biblical Apologetics. Washington DC: Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1985. http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm.Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith. On Faith. April 24, 1870. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_P7.HTM.Von Balthasar, The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church. Translated byAndree Emery. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986.W. J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility. Milwaukee: TheYoung Churchman Company, 1910.

[fabriziomottironi]

Il tradimento e il perdono sono il cuore dell’esistenza non mancata.

Nel 1964 lo psicologo e filosofo statunitense James Hillman intervenne presso la Guild of Pastoral Psychology di Londra con una conferenza dal titolo Betrayal (Tradimento).

Il testo di questa conferenza di Hillman è stato pubblicato dalla Adelphi di Milano nella prima parte dell’opera Puer Aeternus.

Il tema affrontato da Hillman è stato ripreso più volte, non in ultimo l’omelia del vescovo di Rieti Domenico Pompili in occasione della Pasqua dello scorso anno.

Questo tema è tanto scottante quanto profondo, di seguito viene riproposto per come è stato trattato dal filosofo e studioso delle religioni italiano Elémire Zolla nel suo Uscite dal mondo (1992, pubblicato dalla Adelphi), alle pp. 366 e sgg.

«Comincia da una storiellina: un padre ebreo allena il figliolino a saltare da una scala cogliendolo fra le braccia, finché all'improvviso si scosta, lasciandolo stramazzare e dicendo: «Così impari a non fidarti di un ebreo». Hillman informa: «La storia va molto al di là del suo apparente antisemitismo, tanto più che con molta probabilità è una storia ebrea ». Anzitutto il repellente tradimento paterno ha una remota premessa, senza la quale non esisterebbe: lo stato edenico primordiale, la fusione dell'infante con la madre, in cui non era immaginabile un venir meno della fiducia.

Adamo passeggiava con Dio prima della caduta in una realtà pervasa di fede: Dio aveva creato il mondo per l'uomo, il suolo non poteva sottrarsi al piede che lo calcava, il sole non poteva mancare di rispuntare all'aurora. Ma in questo paradiso entrò Eva cioè l'anima e l'anima è ambigua, tradisce. Dopo il tradimento di Eva, tutta la storia è una successione di slealtà e di perfidie, Caino assale Abele, Giacobbe inganna Esaù, i fratelli vendono Giuseppe e infine Dio tradisce Gesù. L'uomo è sottratto alla pace che gli largivano la pelle tiepida, le soffici mammelle colme di latte, si aggrappa oramai a una parola virile che promette e garantisce amore, tutela, lealtà, sicurezza, parola di padre o di amico. Questa parola d'impegno consente di continuare a essere fanciulli, di non dover affrontare l'anima, l'ombra di Eva. Ma una parola non può essere mantenuta, è un fiato di voce ed Eva in noi dev'essere accettata. Perciò il tradimento è fatale, provvidenziale, salutare, occorre che il padre inganni.

La storiellina sgradevole comincia a prendere una luce inattesa, assume il profilo di un'iniziazione. Hillman insiste: il tradimento è necessario per passare dall'Eden al mondo della coscienza desta e della responsabilità avvisata. La vita deve spezzare la struttura di garanzie verbali, il ragazzo dev'essere tradito per poter toccare il cuore dell'esistenza e perciò Dio-padre è infido, appunto: traditore. La storia di Gesù esercita un fascino così costante perché manifesta l'archetipo del tradimento. Giuda inganna, i discepoli dormiranno durante la notte di strazi e invocazioni, Pietro rinnegherà tre volte. Via via il tradimento si moltiplica, dalla tristezza dell'ultima cena al patimento della notte nell'orto fino all'urlo sulla croce. Giuda, i discepoli, Pietro commettono tuttavia infedeltà accettabili, Gesù li può perdonare e può chiedere il perdono anche per i suoi carnefici, essendo una cosa sola con suo padre, ma giunge infine il tradimento insostenibile, dilaniante, di Dio. E Gesù urla il Salmo 22. Ceronetti traduce:

 Dio mio Dio mio perché mi lasci solo?

Mia Salvezza perché sei lontano?

Non parlo più muggisco

Era salvarsi invocarti

Mai essere delusi fidare in te

Eppure dal ventre mi hai cavato tu

Tu ai capezzoli di mia madre mi quietavi.

 Al culmine del disperato orrore il Salmo inverte tutto e grida:

 Tu mi hai risposto.

Gesù muore prima di avere questa risposta. Nel crescere progressivo di infamie c'è stato un risalire sempre più intenso dell'anima femminile, a principiare dal lavacro dei piedi fino alla conclusione trionfale: «alla ferita nel fianco nell'estremo momento della morte, come quando Eva fu strap pata dal fianco di Adamo» sgorga il sangue, il fanciullo divino muore, s'intravede l'uomo che gli succede.

S'intravede, ma nelle nostre vicende comuni può non emergere. Può invece insinuarsi nell'uomo tradito una stizzosa reazione: l'amore, egli dirà, è un inganno, la convinzione una trappola, e così evita di accettare il valore del tradimento. Le perle che profondeva al tempo della fiducia (le confessioni intime, le lettere d'amore, le rivelazioni sulla propria infanzia) ora gli appaiono sabbia, polvere, immondizia. Nega tutto, soffre, diceva Jung, senza autenticità.

 Oppure il tradito diventa un demente, si sforza di rimediare alla labilità delle parole con altre parole, esige d'ora in poi giuramenti disperati, professioni di fedeltà eterna. Sorge una domanda ardua: che cosa è stato il tradimento per il padre? Qualcosa di molto affine alla sua qualità paterna. Egli ha un lato puramente brutale e lo dimostra. Opera, nel dimostrarlo, con il lato sinistro della sua persona, inconsciamente. Non si spiega. Anche il maestro, nel senso tradizionale del termine, autorità assoluta e inspiegabile, ha una freddezza che sola può davvero iniziare il suo alunno. Penso all'allenamento inflitto a Milarepa. La capacità di tradire è affine a quella di guidare, lascia solo il guidato, quando occorra. E solo dev'essere, per sentire ciò che lo sorregge quando non sia più in grado di reggersi. In breve, il padre traditore si trova in un destino tragico, inspiegabile con la psicologia.

 Così il grande maestro iniziatico. Così anche il figlio o l'alunno che riescano a perdonare, operazione terribilmente difficile perché si è animati dall'amor proprio che è stato schiantato, dall'orgoglio che è stato irriso, dall'onore che è stato calpestato e l'offesa si ricorda, provvedono i sogni se nella veglia si riesce a reprimerla. Per perdonare, bisogna trasformare la propria amarezza mercé la Sapienza.

È la creatura che parla nel libro dei Proverbi (8, 22-25) e di sé dice:

L'Eterno mi ebbe all'inizio dei suoi atti

prima di fare le sue opere, in antico.

Fui stabilita in eterno

dal principio, prima che la terra fosse,

fui generata che ancora non c'erano gli abissi,

quando non c'erano ancora le acque sorgive

fui generata prima che i monti fossero fondati.

E entrata o rientrata nel nostro mondo concettuale abbastanza di recente, per opera di Russi. Incominciò Solov'èv a sentire accanto a sé la Sapienza a principiare da quando, all'età di nove anni, se la vide comparire dinanzi in un abbaglio e gli penetrò in cuore un'estasi piena di conoscenza. Per tutta la vita approfondì quella visione, contrappose quella femminilità intellettuale all'Umanità dei positivisti. Dopo di lui Florenskij riprese il tema e formulò la definizione: la Sapienza è la quarta ipostasi di Dio.

Grazie alla Sapienza si scopre che come la fiducia contiene il tradimento, così il tradimento contiene il perdono. La fiducia era inconscia e senz'anima, col tradimento la vita spezzò quell'incanto meramente verbale e il fanciullo si estinse attraverso la rivelazione dell'anima femminile e in virtù del dolore. Il perdono del tradito e l'espiazione del traditore sono la coppia redentrice finale. Credo che soltanto Dostoevskij ne seppe parlare, nell'Idiota.

Da questo punto in poi l'anima si potrà estendere e sviluppare in tutta la sua ricchezza.»