Телеграм канал «Ecce Verbum»

A note on Catholic Social Teaching and territorial claims

Catholic Social Teaching (CST) does not provide a ready-made, unambiguous answer to a specific territorial dispute but it does provide principles to be followed: Human dignity and the right to self-determination. People are not pawns; communities have the right to decide their own political fate (within the limits of the common good), the right of a community with their own identity to self-governance, maintaining its own historical identity. Imposing decisions upon them against their will would be regarded as a form of a violation of their rights. Invasions are generally regarded as unjustified. The CST emphasises just peace, dialogue and the avoidance of aggression.

The rights of nations and historical integrity— The Church recognises the rights of peoples nations to exist, to preserve their cultural and religious identity, and to have their own state (provided this is feasible and does not lead to greater evil).

Historical claims and the territorial integrity of states are respected, but not absolutely — particularly when it comes to decolonisation or the will of the people. The CST recognises the right of nations to self-determination, but within the context of avoiding chaos and respecting existing borders (except in cases of gross injustice).

Subsidiarity— Decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people they affect. From the CST’s perspective, self-determination for the population and peace are key, allowing the inhabitants to take part in a free referendum. Disputes should be resolved through diplomatic means, not by force.

The CST strongly emphasises the importance of historical, ethnic and cultural continuity: the nation as a community of culture, history, language and tradition, which has a right to its own identity and sovereignty. A nation is not merely a ‘collection of citizens’, but an organic community spanning generations. The destruction or forced alteration of this identity (e.g. through colonisation, deportations, Russification or Sinicisation) is unjust.

Continuous, peaceful presence and administration over the centuries (effective occupation and administration) as well as cultural roots carry a great moral weight. At the same time, past historical wrongs (e.g. conquests, unjust treaties) cannot be ignored, but they do not automatically justify present-day aggression or revanchism.

Ethnic/cultural continuity is not absolute. It does not justify ethnic cleansing, expulsions or disregarding the wishes of the current inhabitants (even if they are ‘newcomers’ from previous generations). If a new, established community already lives in a given territory (as in the Falkland Islands), its rights must be taken into account (for example, John Paul II did not support the Argentine invasion. After the war, the Church supported the people’s right to self-determination).

The CST highlights justice, which respects both the history and identity of nations, and the will of the people living there, as well as the need for peace. It is neither ‘pro-colonial’ nor ‘anti-Western’ or ‘revanchist’. Each dispute must be considered on its own merits – weighing up all these principles together, rather than selectively. In practice, the Church often calls for dialogue and reconciliation (for example, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the Balkans or in Northern Ireland), emphasising forgiveness for historical wrongs, warning against ethnic cleansing and historical revenge whilst safeguarding the rights of present-day generations.

It rejects solutions based solely on force, geographical proximity or ‘imperial legacy’. It highlights seeking compromises: autonomy, condominium, special status, minority guarantees, free access, etc., if full incorporation is impossible without injustice. The ultimate criterion is the individual – whether a given solution enhances or undermines their dignity, security, identity, freedom and development.

#socialteaching

A few words on the importance of the Sacrament of Confession in general, in connection with the circulating statement by Cardinal Müller

The priest's jurisdiction is a necessary condition for the validity of the Sacrament of Penance and does not derive from the Holy Orders possessed by the priest. Regardless of whether Cardinal Müller's conclusion is correct, it must certainly be acknowledged that his reasoning must be aligned with what the Church teaches in its entirety.

The Council of Trent expounds this teaching clearly: “The nature and essence of judgment require that the sentence be passed only upon subjects. In the divine Church, there has always existed the conviction, and the council confirms it as entirely true, that absolution granted by a priest to someone over whom he does not possess ordinary or delegated jurisdiction must be regarded as invalid.”

In the textbook Outline of Catholic Dogmatics by Fr. Sieniatycki, we read: “For a priest to validly absolve, he must have ecclesiastical jurisdictional authority for hearing confessions... The opinion of the Synod of Pistoia, that priestly power alone suffices for the validity of absolution, was condemned by Pius VI as a false, unreasonable, harmful opinion, contrary to the Council of Trent... From this it follows that jurisdictional power is not conferred by priestly ordination itself, as Durandus thought, who believed that its exercise is merely illicit without the Church's consent. If a priest acquired jurisdiction through ordination alone, the Church could never render his act of absolution invalid, just as, for example, it cannot invalidate the consecration in Holy Mass.”

The above position is also confirmed by canon law. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states: “Can. 966 § 1. For the valid forgiveness of sins, it is required that the minister—besides the power of orders—have the faculty to exercise it with respect to the faithful to whom he imparts absolution. § 2. A priest may receive this faculty either by virtue of the law itself or by a concession made by competent authority, in accordance with can. 969.”

What is more, the statement below goes against the teaching of Trent, the Popes, and the universal consensus of Theologians: "The authority to forgive sins is conferred by Christ Himself in the sacrament of Holy Orders, not by the Pope through his primacy of jurisdiction..." It is an error taught by the Jansenists.

Christ conferred the power (potestas ordinis) to forgive sins on the Apostles (John 20:22-23; Matthew 16:19, 18:18) and instituted the sacrament of Orders. But priests receive a real sacerdotal power and character through valid ordination by bishops (who act in apostolic succession.

For valid absolution in normal cases, jurisdiction is required from the Pope (primacy of jurisdiction/potestas iuridictionis) through bishops. The Pope can reserve certain sins, delegate/supply jurisdiction (e.g., in danger of death, supplied jurisdiction often applies), or restrict its exercise. Jurisdiction is not "conferred by the Pope" in the sense of creating the priestly character, but the licit and valid exercise for Penance depends on it. Denying the jurisdictional dependence is the error.

In the 880s, Pope Stephen V issued some instructions to a papal legation to the Slavs. In the same document, he anticipates the eastern objection to the Filioque regarding addition(s) to the creed. Take a look at the prepared response:

"Likewise: The Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father and the Son, neither unbegotten, lest there be two Fathers, nor begotten, lest there be two Sons, but proceeding. If they say: “It was forbidden by the holy fathers to add anything to the Creed or to subtract anything from it,” say: “The holy Roman Church is the guardian and confirmer of holy dogmas, because in the Catholic faith, by the vicariate of the prince of the apostles, she wavers in nothing, as the Lord himself says: ‘Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.’ This Church has led all erring churches to the faith and has strengthened those that were wavering, not by changing holy dogmas, but by explaining them to those who did not understand or who thought wrongly.”

Keep in mind that this was written less than a decade after AD 879 Photian Synod.

Source is Epistolae Karolini Aevi, Tom. V; pg. 353

#soteriology #filioque

A historical tidbit:

In the 11th century, the Islamic sultan Nasir ibn Alnas from Algeria wanted Servandus to become the bishop of the Catholic Church in his country. To this end, he wrote to Pope Gregory VII with a request asking whether he could ordain Servandus as a bishop, and the pope agreed.

"Gregory (VII) to Anazir, king of the province of Mauretania-Sitifensis in Africa.

[Without greeting.] Your Highness sent us a request within the past year that we ordain the priest Servandus as a bishop according to Christian order. We have attended to this, since your request seemed to us just and full of good hope. You also sent us gifts, freed some Christian prisoners on account of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, and out of love for us, and promised to free more."

Source:🔗 THE CORRESPONDENCE OF POPE GREGORY VII SELECTED LETTERS FROM THE REGISTRUM TRANSLATED WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY EPHRAIM EMERTON To Anazir, King of Mauretania, ON THE MAINTENANCE OF FRIENDLY RELATIONS , Book III, 21, p. 287.

Canon Law Both the new law—the Code of Canon Law of 1983—and the older one—the Code of Canon Law of 1917—confirm the right and duty of all the faithful to venerate the Saints and the Most Holy Mary. In point 1255 §1 of the old law (CIC 1917), we find a provision regulating all forms of worship: "The Most Holy Trinity and each of Its Persons, as well as Christ the Lord, also under sacramental forms, are due the worship of latria. The Most Holy Virgin Mary is due the worship of hyperdulia, while the others, reigning with Christ in heaven, are due the worship of dulia."

Literature 1. M. Sieniatycki, Outline of Catholic Dogmatics 2. I. Solano SJ, J.A. de Aldama SJ, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 3. L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Related:

🔗Veneration of Relics in Scripure

🔗Scripture and Veneration of the Saints and Angels

🔗God sharing some of His glory with his creatures

Christian Worship - Part Two: Dulia and Hyperdulia

As was stated, every religious worship relates to supernatural perfection, and latria is the religious worship directed toward uncreated supernatural perfection, that is, toward God. Dulia Religious worship that is directed toward some created supernatural perfection is called dulia. It is a form of veneration toward the good whose source in creation is God Himself. Therefore, dulia is never detached from the worship of God; it does not bypass God, nor does it deny the supreme veneration due exclusively to God. By rendering dulia, we ultimately render veneration to God Himself, who is the Creator and Giver of every good in creation.

To Whom Is Dulia Due?

A human being, as a rational being, may render dulia exclusively to other persons, and never to objects. Therefore, only angels and other people in whom there is some supernatural perfection—concerning which we have certainty of its existence in that person—may be surrounded by the worship of dulia. We have this certainty, for example, with regard to the Saints canonized by the Church, who, being in heaven, are united with God in love and eternal happiness and are confirmed in grace forever. Through their lives, examined by the Church, they demonstrated numerous supernatural virtues and merits, through His work in their life, God demonstrates His glory to us. It is therefore fitting to acknowledge these goods, which reveal to us the goodness of God, the source of all good in the world.

Justification of Dulia in Scripture

Holy Scripture, for well-known reasons (the period before Christ's Ascension), does not contain many explicit instances of the worship of Saints, though we can find its justification in it. The Decalogue commands the showing of honor to parents, since the relationship of parents to children images the relationship of God to creation. This is not yet religious worship, as it pertains to natural perfection. However, in numerous places in Scripture, we find veneration rendered to angels (Jos 5:14; Dn 8:17; Tb 12:16), on account of their divine mission and supernatural dignity flowing from their union with God in heaven. Since they are worthy of veneration, the Saints, also united with God in heaven, are likewise worthy of veneration.

Justification of Dulia in Tradition

In the Church, the worship of dulia begins with the veneration of martyrs for the faith. Christians from the very beginning were convinced that persons who, through their lives, confirmed and demonstrated great fruits of divine grace are due veneration. Already in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (2nd century), we find a distinction between the worship of martyrs and the worship of God: "Him [Christ] we worship, because He is the Son of God. But to the martyrs we render the love due to disciples and followers of the Lord, on account of their unmatched devotion to the King and Teacher."

Hyperdulia

The created perfections found in the Saints, which are the object of dulia worship, are repeatable, meaning that the same good is found in many people who are venerated for it. Therefore, hyperdulia is distinguished from dulia; it denotes a special form of worship of a numerically singular created perfection and thus is veneration on account of a good that occurs only in one person and surpasses the goods of other persons. We surround the Most Holy Virgin Mary with the worship of hyperdulia; by divine institution, she possesses special gifts: Divine Motherhood, the Immaculate Conception. These gifts belong to her alone, which causes the Mother of God to stand above all the Saints; she is the most perfect creature, and thus she is surrounded by a special, distinctive form of respect.

Forms of Dulia

The worship of dulia can be shown in many ways, especially through prayers with the Saints intercession, invoking their intercession and finally through appropriate gestures toward images and relics that refer to the person surrounded by dulia.

Continued, sources, related posts 🔗

"And why is the SSPX excommunicated but the liberal clergy is not punished?"

Answer:

Well, they are disciplining all the same:

Fr. Krzysztof Charamsa, suspended in 2015 for announcing that he is gay and living in a stable relationship and for teaching on homosexuality contrary to the Catholic Church.

Fr. Łukasz Kachnowicz - Suspended 2019 for scandal caused by his behavior and statements contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Fr. Pierre Valkering (2019) - Netherlands, suspended for denying the Church's teaching on homosexuality (gay).

Fr. Greg Reynolds (2013) excommunicated for, among other things, supporting the ordination of women and rejecting the teaching of the Church.

Fr. Jerry Zawada (2014) banned from ministry, public speaking as a priest, and administering the sacraments for supporting women's ordination, etc.

Italian priest (name unavailable) 2022 - Suspended for supporting LGBT rights, abortion, and euthanasia.

Fr. Boniecki (2017) banned from speaking out because of his teachings on suicide.

It takes a lot of effort now for the Vatican or the Catholic Church to respond.
Fr. Gerald Murray and Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy criticized Pope Francis harshly, claiming the pope was sowing confusion, destroying doctrine, and causing the faithful to lose trust in the papacy. And nothing, the Vatican agreed to the criticism.

For 17 years, the Lefebvrists have been slandering the pope, the church, the council, the mass, and the papacy has patiently engaged in dialogue, offering to theological discussions over ambiguous points of the council, offering to consecrate one bishop (for the time being). The excommunication only followed the illicit election.

To compare with the situation in Germany, Cardinal Fernández sent a letter to Germany, highlighting that the Fiducia supplicans clearly states that "the Church has always considered only sexual relations within marriage to be morally permissible. She does not have the authority to grant a liturgical blessing when this might in some way constitute a form of moral legitimization of a relationship that has the appearance of marriage or of extramarital sexual activity," even if those requesting it seek to "legitimize their state."

However, the difference lies in the fact that the German Church recognizes the pope's orders and hasn't yet refused discipline. If they appointed bishops without his consent, they'd be treated on the same terms.

Suspensions and other milder disciplinary and corrective measures stem from the fact that many liberal Catholics do not establish their own independent churches with parallel line of succession.

However, there is a list of discipline taken under the last two pontificates towards clerics who openly flout canon law in a liberalizing direction.

2002: the "Danube Seven" was excommunicated for attempting female ordination. Bishop Rómulo Antonio Braschi along with the women were excommunicated, with the entire group of "priests", including its several female "bishops".

2013: One of Francis’s first acts was to excommunicate Father Roberto Francisco Danie, from Brazil who openly taught that homosexual sex is not a sin and advocated for open marriages.

Later that year, Father Greg Reynolds was excommunicated for advocating women’s ordination, gay marriage and then refusing to stop celebrating mass after being suspended from using his faculties.

2015: Vatican had dismissed a member of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Msgr. Krzysztof Charamsa, after he came out as gay. He was sent to his home diocese where he was then suspended and removed from the priesthood.

2019: Fr. Pierre Valkering, a Dutch priest in the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam, was suspended from his diocese after coming out as gay. He appealed to the Vatican and initially won his appeal as the Vatican stated that some procedural steps had not been properly taken and asked the diocese to provide due process.

🔗continued