Yesu Anakuja
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 10, 2019
- 12,675
- 25,924
sasa mbona mnakoboana sana, kitabu huwa mnaweka pembeni?
Papa Francis: Hisani ya Kichungaji itumike wapenzi wa jinsia moja wanapowaomba mapadri baraka
Papa Francis: Hisani ya Kichungaji itumike wapenzi wa jinsia moja wanapowaomba mapadri baraka
- Status
FaizaFoxy
Platinum Member
- Apr 13, 2011
- 100,246
- 123,145
Hjawahi kupinga ushoga, alipoulizwa akati anatoka Bwazil akajibu "kwani mimi ni nani?"
Hapoa inamaanisha yeye mwenyewe ni shoga.
Mnakataa nini wakati 80% ya makadinali wa kanisa katoliki ni mashoiga wa wazi kabisa? Utafiti huu hapa:
The Secret Lives of the Vatican’s Gay Cardinals, Monks, and Other Clergy Members
With a new Pope promising reform, Michael Joseph Gross reports from Rome on how the Catholic Church’s gay clergy members navigate the paradox of their lives.
Kama mnamuabudu Mwenyezi Mungu mmoja suluhisho lenu ni kuwa Waislam tu.
ephen_
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 28, 2022
- 14,949
- 54,485
Code imeeleweka!😂
mshamba_hachekwi
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 3, 2023
- 20,704
- 66,337
faiza huu ndo uwanja wako wa kujidaiHjawahi kupinga ushoga, alipoulizwa akati anatoka Bwazil akajibu "kwani mimi ni nani?"
Hapoa inamaanisha yeye mwenyewe ni shoga.
Mnakataa nini wakati 80% ya makadinali wa kanisa katoliki ni mashoiga wa wazi kabisa? Utafiti huu hapa:
The Secret Lives of the Vatican’s Gay Cardinals, Monks, and Other Clergy Members
With a new Pope promising reform, Michael Joseph Gross reports from Rome on how the Catholic Church’s gay clergy members navigate the paradox of their lives.www.vanityfair.com
Kama mnamuabudu Mwenyezi Mungu mmoja suluhisho lenu ni kuwa Waislam tu.
umefurahi wee
MwananchiOG
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 4, 2023
- 1,970
- 4,037
Mgagaa na Upwa
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 30, 2013
- 13,481
- 28,116
View: https://youtube.com/shorts/AZKSnKRvgBM?si=8VueKprODZFkzTi4
Papai jikubali tu pope ndio kishasema mliwe
Black Sniper
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 10, 2013
- 32,406
- 55,148
Yaani hawa kuwaamini inataka ujitoe ufahamu
PakiJinja
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 16, 2012
- 11,689
- 25,848
Ukiisoma taarifa ya kiingereza hivyo vyote havipo na hata taarifa nyingine za kiswahili mkanganyiko upo BBC pekee.
gemseeker23
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 26, 2023
- 354
- 246
nakazi kubariki ni kuhalalisha yaani kuipa baraka tele kwa maana washabarikiwa
Ulimakafu
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 18, 2011
- 31,248
- 13,244
Watu hawajaelewa.
Papa Francis mara nyingi amekuwa akisingiziwa baadhi ya mambo ambayo hajawahi kuyasema kuhusu imani na Kanisa Katoliki. Yafuatayo ni baadhi ya maswali aliyoulizwa na makardinali 5 kutoka nchi mbalimbali na majibu yake.
Read Pope Francis’ Response to the ‘Dubia’ Presented to Him by 5 Cardinals
Read the July dubia with Pope Francis’ response to each one.
The Vatican
Daniel Payne/CNA
Vatican
October 2, 2023
Five cardinals have sent a set of questions known as dubia to Pope Francis to express their concerns and seek clarification on points of doctrine and discipline ahead of this week’s opening of the Synod on Synodality at the Vatican.
Dubia are questions brought before the pope and the appropriate Vatican office that seek a simple “Yes” or “No” response in order to clarify disputed matters of Catholic teaching and practice.
The prelates — German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, American Cardinal Raymond Burke, Chinese Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, Mexican Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez and Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah — had submitted an earlier version of their dubia on July 10 and received a reply the following day.
Because the Pope answered at length — and not with the customary “Yes” or “No” — the group resubmitted their dubia in August in order to get clarification. The Pope has not responded to the August set of dubia.
Below are the July dubia with Pope Francis’ response to each one:
1. Dubium about the claim that we should reinterpret divine revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.
After the statements of some bishops, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, it is asked whether in the Church divine revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether divine revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted, according to the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, that to God who reveals is due “the obedience of faith” (Dei Verbum, 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all must remain “in their entirety, throughout the ages” and alive, and be “transmitted to all generations” (7); and that the progress of understanding does not imply any change in the truth of things and words, because faith has been “handed on ... once and for all” (8), and the magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but teaches only what has been handed on (10).
Pope Francis’ response: a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word “reinterpret.” If it is understood as “to interpret better,” the expression is valid. In this sense the Second Vatican Council affirmed that it is necessary that with the work of the exegetes — I would add of the theologians — “the judgment of the Church may mature” (Cone. Ecum. Vat. II, Const. Dogm. Dei Verbum, 12).
b) Therefore, while it is true that divine revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding.
c) Therefore, she also matures in the understanding of what she herself has affirmed in her magisterium.
d) Cultural changes and the new challenges of history do not modify the revelation, but they can stimulate us to make more explicit some aspects of its overflowing richness, which always offers more.
e) It is inevitable that this may lead to a better expression of some past statements of the magisterium, and indeed it has happened throughout history.
f) On the other hand, it is true that the magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of Scripture and the testimonies of tradition need an interpretation that allows us to distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning. It is evident, for example, in biblical texts (such as Ex 21:20-21) and in some magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Oum Diversas, 1452). This is not a minor issue given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts are in need of interpretation. The same is true for some New Testament considerations on women (1 Cor 11:3-10; 1 Tim 2:11-14) and for other texts of Scripture and testimonies of tradition that cannot be repeated literally today.
g) It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what has been revealed “for the salvation of all” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 7). For this reason the Church must constantly discern between what is essential for salvation and what is secondary or less directly connected with this goal. In this regard, I would like to recall what St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed: “the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects” (Summa Theologiae 1-11, q. 94, art. 4).
h) Finally, a single formulation of a truth can never be adequately understood if it is presented in isolation, isolated from the rich and harmonious context of the whole of revelation. The “hierarchy of truths” also implies situating each of them in adequate connection with the more central truths and with the totality of the Church’s teaching. This can ultimately give rise to different ways of expounding the same doctrine, although “for those who long for a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all and leaving no room for nuance, this might appear as undesirable and leading to confusion. But in fact such variety serves to bring out and develop different facets of the inexhaustible riches of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium, 49). Each theological line has its risks but also its opportunities.
2. Dubium about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with revelation and the magisterium (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357).
According to divine revelation, confirmed in sacred Scripture, which the Church “with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, … listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully” (Dei Verbum, 10): “In the beginning” God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful (cf. Gen. 1:27-28), whereby the apostle Paul teaches that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1:24-32). It is asked: Can the Church derogate from this “principle,” objectively sinful such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?
Pope Francis’ response: a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. It calls this union “marriage.” Other forms of union only realize it “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia, 292), and so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”
b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.”
c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.
d) In dealing with people, however, we must not lose the pastoral charity that must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.
e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea for a better life, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better.
f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from an objective point of view are not morally acceptable, pastoral charity itself demands that we do not simply treat as “sinners“ other people whose guilt or responsibility may be due to their own fault or responsibility attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).
g) Decisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a diocese, an episcopal conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially authorize procedures or rites for all kinds of matters, since everything “what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule,“ because this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry“ (Amoris Laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the episcopal conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to the normative ones.
3. Dubium about the assertion that synodality is a “constitutive element of the Church“ (Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio, 6), so that the Church would, by its very nature, be synodal.
Given that the Synod of Bishops does not represent the college of bishops but is merely a consultative organ of the pope, since the bishops, as witnesses of the faith, cannot delegate their confession of the truth, it is asked whether synodality can be the supreme regulative criterion of the permanent government of the Church without distorting her constitutive order willed by her Founder, whereby the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the pope by virtue of his office and by the college of bishops together with its head the Roman pontiff (Lumen Gentium, 22).
Pope Francis’ response: a) Although you recognize that the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised either by the pope because of his office or by the college of bishops together with its head, the Roman pontiff (cf. Cone. Ecum. Vat. II, Const. dogm. Lumen Gentium, 22), nevertheless with these dubia you yourselves manifest your need to participate, to give your opinion freely and to collaborate, and you are claiming some form of “synodality” in the exercise of my ministry.
b) The Church is a “mystery of missionary communion,” but this communion is not only affective or eternal, but necessarily implies real participation: that not only the hierarchy but all the people of God in different ways and at different levels can make their voice heard and feel part of the Church’s journey. In this sense we can say that synodality, as a style and dynamism, is an essential dimension of the life of the Church. On this point St. John Paul II has said very beautiful things in Novo Millennio Ineunte.
c) It is quite another thing to sacralize or impose a particular synodal methodology that pleases one group, to make it the norm and obligatory channel for all, because this would only lead to “freezing” the synodal journey, ignoring the diverse characteristics of the different particular Churches and the varied richness of the universal Church.
4. Dubium about pastors’ and theologians’ support for the theory that “the theology of the Church has changed” and therefore that priestly ordination can be conferred on women.
After the statements of some prelates, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, according to which, with Vatican II, the theology of the Church and the meaning of the Mass has changed, it is asked whether the dictum of the Second Vatican Council is still valid, that “[the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood] differ from one another in essence and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium, 10) and that presbyters by virtue of the “sacred power of orders, to offer sacrifice and forgive sins” (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 2), act in the name and in the person of Christ the Mediator, through whom the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect. It is furthermore asked whether the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which teaches as a truth to be definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid, so that this teaching is no longer subject to change nor to the free discussion of pastors or theologians.
Pope Francis’ response: a) “The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially” (Cone. Ecum. Vat. 11, Const. Dogm. Lumen Gentium, 10). It is not convenient to maintain a difference of degree that implies considering the common priesthood of the faithful as something of “second category” or of lesser value (“a lower degree”). Both forms of priesthood mutually enlighten and sustain each other.
b) When St. John Paul II taught that it is necessary to affirm “definitively“ the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, he was in no way belittling women and granting supreme power to men. St. John Paul II also affirmed other things. For example, that when we speak of priestly power “we are in the area of function, not of dignity or holiness“ (St. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 51).
These are words that we have not sufficiently accepted. He also clearly maintained that while the priest alone presides at the Eucharist, the tasks “do not give rise to superiority of one over the other“ (St. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, note 190; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Inter Insigniores, VI). I likewise affirm that if the priestly function is “hierarchical,“ it should not be understood as a form of domination, but “this structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members.“ (St. John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem, 27). If this is not understood and the practical consequences of these distinctions are not drawn, it will be difficult to accept that the priesthood is reserved only to men and we will not be able to recognize the rights of women or the need for them to participate, in various ways, in the leadership of the Church.
c) On the other hand, to be rigorous, let us recognize that a clear and authoritative doctrine has not yet been exhaustively developed about the exact nature of a “definitive statement.“ It is not a dogmatic definition, and yet it must be observed by all. No one can publicly contradict it and yet it can be the object of study, as is the case with the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.
5. Dubium about the statement “forgiveness is a human right“ and the Holy Father’s insistence on the duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.
It is asked whether the teaching of the Council of Trent, according to which the contrition of the penitent, which consists in detesting the sin committed with the intention of sinning no more (Session XIV, Chapter IV: DH 1676), is necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, is still in force, so that the priest must postpone absolution when it is clear that this condition is not fulfilled.
Pope Francis’ response: a) Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution, and implies the intention not to sin. But there is no mathematics here, and once again I must remind you that the confessional is not a customs house. We are not owners but humble stewards of the sacraments that nourish the faithful, because these gifts of the Lord, more than relics to be guarded, are aids of the Holy Spirit for the life of the people.
b) There are many ways to express regret. Often, in people who have a very wounded self-esteem, pleading guilty is a cruel torture, but the very act of approaching confession is a symbolic expression of repentance and seeking divine help.
c) I would also like to recall that “at times we find it hard to make room for God’s unconditional love in our pastoral activity” (Amoris Laetitia, 311), but we must learn to do so. Following St. John Paul II, I maintain that we should not demand from the faithful overly precise and certain proposals for amendment, which in the end end up being abstract or even egotistic, but that even the predictability of a new fall “does not compromise the authenticity of the intention”.
d) Finally, it should be clear that all the conditions that are usually placed on the confession are generally not applicable when the person is in a situation of agony, or with very limited mental and psychological capacities.
The dubia were signed by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez and Cardinal Robert Sarah
Post Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’ is shown in Vatican City on April 8, 2016.
Copyright © 2023 EWTN News, Inc. All rights reserved. EIN 27-4581132
Read Pope Francis’ Response to the ‘Dubia’ Presented to Him by 5 Cardinals
Read the July dubia with Pope Francis’ response to each one.
The Vatican
Daniel Payne/CNA
Vatican
October 2, 2023
Five cardinals have sent a set of questions known as dubia to Pope Francis to express their concerns and seek clarification on points of doctrine and discipline ahead of this week’s opening of the Synod on Synodality at the Vatican.
Dubia are questions brought before the pope and the appropriate Vatican office that seek a simple “Yes” or “No” response in order to clarify disputed matters of Catholic teaching and practice.
The prelates — German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, American Cardinal Raymond Burke, Chinese Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, Mexican Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez and Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah — had submitted an earlier version of their dubia on July 10 and received a reply the following day.
Because the Pope answered at length — and not with the customary “Yes” or “No” — the group resubmitted their dubia in August in order to get clarification. The Pope has not responded to the August set of dubia.
Below are the July dubia with Pope Francis’ response to each one:
1. Dubium about the claim that we should reinterpret divine revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.
After the statements of some bishops, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, it is asked whether in the Church divine revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether divine revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted, according to the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, that to God who reveals is due “the obedience of faith” (Dei Verbum, 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all must remain “in their entirety, throughout the ages” and alive, and be “transmitted to all generations” (7); and that the progress of understanding does not imply any change in the truth of things and words, because faith has been “handed on ... once and for all” (8), and the magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but teaches only what has been handed on (10).
Pope Francis’ response: a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word “reinterpret.” If it is understood as “to interpret better,” the expression is valid. In this sense the Second Vatican Council affirmed that it is necessary that with the work of the exegetes — I would add of the theologians — “the judgment of the Church may mature” (Cone. Ecum. Vat. II, Const. Dogm. Dei Verbum, 12).
b) Therefore, while it is true that divine revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding.
c) Therefore, she also matures in the understanding of what she herself has affirmed in her magisterium.
d) Cultural changes and the new challenges of history do not modify the revelation, but they can stimulate us to make more explicit some aspects of its overflowing richness, which always offers more.
e) It is inevitable that this may lead to a better expression of some past statements of the magisterium, and indeed it has happened throughout history.
f) On the other hand, it is true that the magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of Scripture and the testimonies of tradition need an interpretation that allows us to distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning. It is evident, for example, in biblical texts (such as Ex 21:20-21) and in some magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Oum Diversas, 1452). This is not a minor issue given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts are in need of interpretation. The same is true for some New Testament considerations on women (1 Cor 11:3-10; 1 Tim 2:11-14) and for other texts of Scripture and testimonies of tradition that cannot be repeated literally today.
g) It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what has been revealed “for the salvation of all” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 7). For this reason the Church must constantly discern between what is essential for salvation and what is secondary or less directly connected with this goal. In this regard, I would like to recall what St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed: “the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects” (Summa Theologiae 1-11, q. 94, art. 4).
h) Finally, a single formulation of a truth can never be adequately understood if it is presented in isolation, isolated from the rich and harmonious context of the whole of revelation. The “hierarchy of truths” also implies situating each of them in adequate connection with the more central truths and with the totality of the Church’s teaching. This can ultimately give rise to different ways of expounding the same doctrine, although “for those who long for a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all and leaving no room for nuance, this might appear as undesirable and leading to confusion. But in fact such variety serves to bring out and develop different facets of the inexhaustible riches of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium, 49). Each theological line has its risks but also its opportunities.
2. Dubium about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with revelation and the magisterium (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357).
According to divine revelation, confirmed in sacred Scripture, which the Church “with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, … listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully” (Dei Verbum, 10): “In the beginning” God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful (cf. Gen. 1:27-28), whereby the apostle Paul teaches that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1:24-32). It is asked: Can the Church derogate from this “principle,” objectively sinful such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?
Pope Francis’ response: a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. It calls this union “marriage.” Other forms of union only realize it “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia, 292), and so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”
b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.”
c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.
d) In dealing with people, however, we must not lose the pastoral charity that must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.
e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea for a better life, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better.
f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from an objective point of view are not morally acceptable, pastoral charity itself demands that we do not simply treat as “sinners“ other people whose guilt or responsibility may be due to their own fault or responsibility attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).
g) Decisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a diocese, an episcopal conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially authorize procedures or rites for all kinds of matters, since everything “what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule,“ because this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry“ (Amoris Laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the episcopal conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to the normative ones.
3. Dubium about the assertion that synodality is a “constitutive element of the Church“ (Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio, 6), so that the Church would, by its very nature, be synodal.
Given that the Synod of Bishops does not represent the college of bishops but is merely a consultative organ of the pope, since the bishops, as witnesses of the faith, cannot delegate their confession of the truth, it is asked whether synodality can be the supreme regulative criterion of the permanent government of the Church without distorting her constitutive order willed by her Founder, whereby the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the pope by virtue of his office and by the college of bishops together with its head the Roman pontiff (Lumen Gentium, 22).
Pope Francis’ response: a) Although you recognize that the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised either by the pope because of his office or by the college of bishops together with its head, the Roman pontiff (cf. Cone. Ecum. Vat. II, Const. dogm. Lumen Gentium, 22), nevertheless with these dubia you yourselves manifest your need to participate, to give your opinion freely and to collaborate, and you are claiming some form of “synodality” in the exercise of my ministry.
b) The Church is a “mystery of missionary communion,” but this communion is not only affective or eternal, but necessarily implies real participation: that not only the hierarchy but all the people of God in different ways and at different levels can make their voice heard and feel part of the Church’s journey. In this sense we can say that synodality, as a style and dynamism, is an essential dimension of the life of the Church. On this point St. John Paul II has said very beautiful things in Novo Millennio Ineunte.
c) It is quite another thing to sacralize or impose a particular synodal methodology that pleases one group, to make it the norm and obligatory channel for all, because this would only lead to “freezing” the synodal journey, ignoring the diverse characteristics of the different particular Churches and the varied richness of the universal Church.
4. Dubium about pastors’ and theologians’ support for the theory that “the theology of the Church has changed” and therefore that priestly ordination can be conferred on women.
After the statements of some prelates, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, according to which, with Vatican II, the theology of the Church and the meaning of the Mass has changed, it is asked whether the dictum of the Second Vatican Council is still valid, that “[the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood] differ from one another in essence and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium, 10) and that presbyters by virtue of the “sacred power of orders, to offer sacrifice and forgive sins” (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 2), act in the name and in the person of Christ the Mediator, through whom the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect. It is furthermore asked whether the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which teaches as a truth to be definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid, so that this teaching is no longer subject to change nor to the free discussion of pastors or theologians.
Pope Francis’ response: a) “The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially” (Cone. Ecum. Vat. 11, Const. Dogm. Lumen Gentium, 10). It is not convenient to maintain a difference of degree that implies considering the common priesthood of the faithful as something of “second category” or of lesser value (“a lower degree”). Both forms of priesthood mutually enlighten and sustain each other.
b) When St. John Paul II taught that it is necessary to affirm “definitively“ the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, he was in no way belittling women and granting supreme power to men. St. John Paul II also affirmed other things. For example, that when we speak of priestly power “we are in the area of function, not of dignity or holiness“ (St. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 51).
These are words that we have not sufficiently accepted. He also clearly maintained that while the priest alone presides at the Eucharist, the tasks “do not give rise to superiority of one over the other“ (St. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, note 190; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Inter Insigniores, VI). I likewise affirm that if the priestly function is “hierarchical,“ it should not be understood as a form of domination, but “this structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members.“ (St. John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem, 27). If this is not understood and the practical consequences of these distinctions are not drawn, it will be difficult to accept that the priesthood is reserved only to men and we will not be able to recognize the rights of women or the need for them to participate, in various ways, in the leadership of the Church.
c) On the other hand, to be rigorous, let us recognize that a clear and authoritative doctrine has not yet been exhaustively developed about the exact nature of a “definitive statement.“ It is not a dogmatic definition, and yet it must be observed by all. No one can publicly contradict it and yet it can be the object of study, as is the case with the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.
5. Dubium about the statement “forgiveness is a human right“ and the Holy Father’s insistence on the duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.
It is asked whether the teaching of the Council of Trent, according to which the contrition of the penitent, which consists in detesting the sin committed with the intention of sinning no more (Session XIV, Chapter IV: DH 1676), is necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, is still in force, so that the priest must postpone absolution when it is clear that this condition is not fulfilled.
Pope Francis’ response: a) Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution, and implies the intention not to sin. But there is no mathematics here, and once again I must remind you that the confessional is not a customs house. We are not owners but humble stewards of the sacraments that nourish the faithful, because these gifts of the Lord, more than relics to be guarded, are aids of the Holy Spirit for the life of the people.
b) There are many ways to express regret. Often, in people who have a very wounded self-esteem, pleading guilty is a cruel torture, but the very act of approaching confession is a symbolic expression of repentance and seeking divine help.
c) I would also like to recall that “at times we find it hard to make room for God’s unconditional love in our pastoral activity” (Amoris Laetitia, 311), but we must learn to do so. Following St. John Paul II, I maintain that we should not demand from the faithful overly precise and certain proposals for amendment, which in the end end up being abstract or even egotistic, but that even the predictability of a new fall “does not compromise the authenticity of the intention”.
d) Finally, it should be clear that all the conditions that are usually placed on the confession are generally not applicable when the person is in a situation of agony, or with very limited mental and psychological capacities.
The dubia were signed by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez and Cardinal Robert Sarah
Post Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’ is shown in Vatican City on April 8, 2016.
Copyright © 2023 EWTN News, Inc. All rights reserved. EIN 27-4581132
jiwe angavu
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 20,419
- 39,217
Ungeiweka kwa kiswahili kuna maamuma humu wamejaa.
CM 1774858
JF-Expert Member
- May 29, 2021
- 5,621
- 5,029
TYK,
Haya Hapa Majibu ya Papa kuhusu ndoa za jinsia moja,
Makardinali watano wamemwandikia Waraka Papa kuelezea wasi wasi wao kuhusu: Ufunuo wa Kimungu, juu ya baraka kwa ndoa za watu wa jinsia moja; Kuhusu Sinodi kama mwelekeo wa Kisheria wa Kanisa; Juu ya Upadrisho wa wanawake ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki na juu ya Toba kama sharti la lazima kwa ajili ya msamaha unaotolewa kwenye Sakramenti ya Upatanisho. Baba Mtakatifu amewajibu na kuonesha msimamo wa Kanisa kuhusiana na mashaka yao.
Na Padre Richard A. Mjigwa, C.PP.S. – Vatican.
===
Kardinali Walter Brandmüller, Kardinali Raymond Leo Burke, Kardinali Juan Sandoval Iñiguez, Kardinali Robert Sarah pamoja na Kardinali Joseph Zen Ze-kiun wamemwandikia Waraka Baba Mtakatifu Francisko kuelezea wasi wasi wao kuhusu masuala makuu matano huku wakiomba tafsiri kuhusiana na: Ufunuo wa Kimungu, juu ya baraka kwa ndoa za watu wa jinsia moja; Kuhusu Sinodi kama mwelekeo wa Kisheria wa Kanisa; Juu ya Upadrisho wa wanawake ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki na juu ya Toba kama sharti la lazima kwa ajili ya msamaha unaotolewa kwenye Sakramenti ya Upatanisho. Maswali ya Makardinali hawa, yaliandikwa tarehe 11 Julai 2023 na kutumwa kwa Baba Mtakatifu tarehe 21 Agosti 2023 na Baba Mtakatifu akajibu “Responsa Dubia” na kuchapishwa kwenye wavuti ya Baraza la Kipapa la Mafundisho Tanzu ya Kanisa tarehe 2 Oktoba 2023, siku chache tu kabla ya kufungua Maadhimisho ya Sinodi ya Kumi na Sita ya Maaskofu inayonogeshwa na kauli mbiu “Kwa Ajili ya Kanisa la Kisinodi: Umoja, Ushiriki na Utume.” Mashaka kuhusu kutafasiri Ufunuo wa Kimungu mintarafu mabadiliko ya kitamaduni na maono ya watu.
Kufasiri Maandiko Matakatifu ni kazi ya Kanisa.
Baba Mtakatifu anasema kuna haja ya kutambua maana inayokusudiwa kuhusu “Ufafanuzi.” Ni wajibu wa wafafanuzi kusaidia, kadiri ya mwongozo huu, kuelewa na kufasiri kwa undani zaidi maana ya Maandiko Matakatifu ili, kwa chunguzi zilizo za namna ya matayarisho, uamuzi wa Kanisa uthibitike. Kwa kweli hayo yote yanayohusu jinsi ya kufasiri Maandiko Matakatifu yapo chini ya uamuzi wa Kanisa, ambaye hutimiza amri ya Mungu na huduma yake ya kuhifadhi na kulifafanua Neno la Mungu. Rej. Dei verbum 12. Mama Kanisa lazima atoe mang’amuzi ya mambo makuu kwa ajili ya wokovu wa roho za watu. Kwa wale wanaotamani aina moja ya mkusanyiko wa mafundisho yanayofanana na yanayofuatwa na wote bila kuruhusu mwanya kwa ajili ya tofauti ndogo ndogo, hili litaonekana kama vile jambo lisilotakiwa na linalochanganya. Lakini kwa kweli tofauti ya namna hii inasaidia kuweka wazi na kuendeleza sehemu mbalimbali za utajiri wa Injili usioweza kwisha. Rej. Evangelii gaudium, 40.
Ndoa ya Kikristo inaundwa na mwanaume na mwanamke.
Pili ni Mashaka Kuhusu baraka za ndoa ya watu wa jinsia moja na hapa Baba Mtakatifu anasema, Ndoa ya Kikristo kama sura inayoakisi muungano kati ya Kristo Yesu na Kanisa lake, inatekelezwa kwa utimilifu katika muungano kati ya mwanaume na mwanamke wanaojitoa mmoja kwa mwenziye kwa upendo ulio huru, wenye uaminifu na wa kipekee, ambamo kila mmoja anakuwa ni mali ya mwenzake hadi kufa, na wanakuwa radhi kuendeleza uzao, tena wamewekwa wakfu kwa Sakramenti inayowaletea neema ya kuwa Kanisa la nyumbani na kuwa chachu ya maisha mapya kwa jamii. Hi indio maana ya Ndoa ya Kikristo na wala si vinginevyo! Rej Amoris laetitia 292. Pamoja na msimamo huu wa Kanisa,
Ujenzi wa Kanisa la Kisinodi ni hitaji muhimu la nyakati hizi.
Tatu ni Mashaka Kuhusu Sinodi kama mwelekeo wa kisheria wa Kanisa, Baba Mtakatifu Francisko anasema, kwa maana Papa kwa nguvu ya wadhifa wake kama Wakili wa Kristo na Mchungaji wa Kanisa lote, ana mamlaka katika Kanisa, iliyo kamili, ya juu kabisa na iwahusuyo wote, ambayo anaweza kuyatimiza kwa uhuru. Urika wa Maaskofu ni urithi wa Urika wa Mitume katika kufundisha na katika uongozi wa kichungaji; na ndani yake umoja wa Mitume huendelezwa katika nyakati. Huu ni mwaliko kwa Maaskofu kushiriki kikamilifu katika ujenzi wa Kanisa la Kisinodi kama sehemu ya utekelezaji wa majukumu yake kama Khalifa wa Mtakatifu Petro, kwa sababu Kanisa ni Fumbo la ushirika wa kimisionari unaowataka hata waamini walei kushiriki kikamilifu katika maisha na utume wa Kanisa.
Kuna Ukuhani wa waamini wote na ukuhani wa daraja.
Nne ni Mashaka Kuhusu Upadrisho wa Wanawake ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki na Baba Mtakatifu Francisko anasema, Ukuhani wa waamini wote na ukuhani wa kidaraja au wa kihierakia, ingawa huhitilafiana kadiri ya kiini chake na siyo kadiri ya cheo tu, huelekezana kati yake kwa sababu zote mbili, na kila mmoja kwa namna yake hushiriki ukuhani mmoja wa Kristo Yesu! Tofauti kuu ni huduma na wala si utu wala utakatifu wa maisha. Kumbe, Mama Kanisa anatambua na kuthamini mchango wa wanawake katika maisha na utume wa Kanisa hata kama hawana nafasi ya kuadhimisha Fumbo la Ekaristi Takatifu. Lakini kwenye Kanisa Anglikani kuna wanawake ambao wamewekwa wakfu kuwa Mapadre.
Toba ni jambo la msingi katika Sakramenti ya Upatanisho.
Tano ni Mashaka juu ya Toba kama sharti la lazima kwa ajili ya msamaha unaotolewa kwenye Sakramenti ya Upatanisho, Baba Mtakatifu anasema, toba ni jambo la msingi katika Sakramenti ya Upatanisho kwani linaonesha ile nia ya kutotenda dhambi tena na kwamba, Mapadre waungamishi ni vyombo vya huruma ya Mungu na kwa njia ya Roho Mtakatifu wanakuwa ni msaada mkubwa kwa watu wa Mungu. Kukimbilia kiti cha huruma ya Mungu ni kielelezo cha hali ya juu kabisa cha toba, tayari kuomba msaada wa upendo na huruma ya Mungu. Huu ni mwaliko kwa Mapadre waungamishaji kutoa kipaumbele cha ukarimu kama jibu kwa zawadi ya upendo wa Mungu unaotolewa bure bila gharama yoyote. Katika shughuli za kichungaji upendo wa Mungu usiokuwa na masharti unapaswa kutangazwa na kushuhudiwa ili kuonesha maana yake halisi. Rej. Amoris laetitia 311.
Papa Dubia
Mwananchi Huru
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 20, 2021
- 2,128
- 1,896
Mungu baba tusaidie sisi na watoto wetu.
std7
JF-Expert Member
- May 6, 2011
- 2,293
- 3,928
Papa Francis amependekeza kuwa atakuwa tayari kuona Kanisa Katoliki likibariki wapenzi wa jinsia moja.
Akijibu kundi la makadinali waliomwomba ufafanuzi juu ya suala hilo, alisema ombi lolote la baraka linapaswa kushughulikiwa na "hisani ya kichungaji".
Bbc Swahili.
Akijibu kundi la makadinali waliomwomba ufafanuzi juu ya suala hilo, alisema ombi lolote la baraka linapaswa kushughulikiwa na "hisani ya kichungaji".
Bbc Swahili.
- Status