The Dubia Five: More Uncertain Sounds From the Conciliar Trumpets
Just Another Episode in the Slow-Motion Train Wreck of Vatican II...
First, we had the Bishop Strickland Saga. Then all the Usual Suspects, namely, Archbishop Carlo Marie Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schnieder, weigh in on Pope Frantic's upcoming "Synod on Synodality", the latest gimmick of the Vacuous Church of Vatican II, which reformed everything while claiming it was changing nothing.
We will not recount here the lies, sophistry, misdirections, refusals to clarify, heresies, sacrileges, and confusion that has overwhelmed "Holy Mother Church" (a term this Wolf uses very loosely, because obviously the Clowns in the Seat of the Antichrist at the Vatican in Rome are as much a part of the True Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Seventy Demons from the Pit of Hell.)
As usual, the "Tradservative" Amen Corner is clapping like trained seals over this latest vomit from the Conciliar Church, but not so this Wolf. Rather, we are going to dissect this Hot Steaming Mess in the light of Catholic Tradition.
So, without further ado, we are going to quote extensively from the documents as translated and posted on the Tradition Family and Property (TFP) Website. The first part of the first document reads as follows:
"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)."
This paragraph sets the tone of all that is to follow. Notice that all of the references are to the Second Vatican Council. Needless to say, using the Second Vatican Council to defend Catholic Orthodoxy is akin to using jello as a building material. It concludes by saying the "Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God", which this Wolf is assuming is a reference to Holy Scripture, but COULD also be understood as the work of the Holy Ghost in keeping intact and conserving the Sacred Deposit of Faith. But we simply do not know. At the end of the day, just more Conciliar gobbledegook.
But wait. It gets better. Much better.
"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 (CCC 2357).
"According to Divine Revelation, confirmed in Sacred Scripture, which the Church 'at the divine command with the help of the Holy Spirit, … listens to devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds 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,' considering it, contrary to what Veritatis Splendor 103 taught, as a mere ideal, and accepting as a "possible good" objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?"
First off, calling the Rite of Sodomy "same-sex unions" is already to intimate that some type of charitable bond akin to Holy matrimony could exist here. But more to the point, this whole paragraph is conflating sodomy with the "denial of sexual difference".
Let's quote their reference to St Paul in full: "(24) Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them."
This is a very famous passage from St Paul expositing the theology of vice, where the main point the Apostle to the Gentiles is making is that those who willfully close their minds and hearts to the Truth- any and all truth, both from the Light of Natural Reason and the promptings of the Holy Ghost- will be led into a progression of unnatural and vicious behavior, ending in the attempt self-annihilation of suicide. Nowhere does St Paul intimate this is because of the denial of "sexual difference". The road to Hell begins with the deliberate consent to even the smallest sins. This is a classic example of epic stupidity on the part of the "princes of the church" trying to make scripture meld to the current news cycle.
"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)."
The Dubia Five here seem to be forgetting that the Second Vatican Council was a "universal pastoral synod" of sorts. What Good Pope John, way back in 1960, called a "pastoral council" that would "define no dogmas or issue no condemnations" metamorphosed into the "Party Line" that made Vatican II a "supercouncil", a "New Pentecost", and the Old Pentecost and all the Councils that preceded Vatican II could just go to Hell, or at least be consigned to the Great Memory Hole. How can one possibly use Vatican II to argue against the "Synod on Synodality"? That is like using mud to clean the laundry.
Meanwhile, what would have been much more to the point and much less wordy at the same time would have been simply to give the Divine Mandate Our Lord Jesus Christ gave His Church just before ascending into Heaven: "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
"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 essentially and not only in degree' (Lumen Gentium 10) and that presbyters by virtue of the 'sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice and forgiving 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."
Obviously, the Dubia Five consider JP2 a saint, and use that to buttress what he said concerning the Ordination of Women. Of course, those with good memories will also recall that JP2 also allowed "female acolytes", which, of course, traditionally, has been associated with the Minor Orders and the clerical state. So what we have here is just another of a myriad of examples, going back at least to Pius X, where the pope says one thing but his praxis is entirely another. Once again, using mud to clean the laundry.
"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."
Oh my gosh, this Wolf is taken aback. So there IS such a thing as the Council of Trent after all! At any rate, thank you Dubia Five for stating what a Four-Year-Old could intuitively grasp: If I have contempt for the rule then I can expect nothing but punishments from my parents until I have a purpose of amendment, and it absolutely, utterly stupid to expect forgiveness or a restoration of tranquility until I am resolved to amend. Enough said.
Document #2 is merely a recapitulation of Document #1, which condenses the topic of each section into a simple yes or no question. For example: "Can Women be ordained?" And each question could be answered by a Third Grade Student with just a cursory knowledge of the Baltimore Catechism. "DUH."
Dcoment #3 is here quoted in full:
"We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful 'to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church' (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals 'to assist the Roman Pontiff … individually … especially in the daily care of the universal Church' (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff. By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of dubia [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his responsa [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five dubia to Pope Francis, a copy of which is attached. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.
"Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of responsa ad dubia [responses to questions], we reformulated the dubia to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated dubia, a copy of which is attached, to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated dubia.
"Given the gravity of the matter of the dubia, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully."
And now you know what all the "Tradservatives" are crowing about- absolutely nothing. The Dubia Five never CLEARLY STATE that what Pope Frantic has said is manifestly contrary to the received and approved Traditions of Holy Mother Church. They are merely asking for a clarification, and failing that, are asking people to pray for the pope. But, in the meantime, they have utterly failed to condemn Pope Frantic. And, meanwhile, of course, not a word on all those 600 Pound Gorillas crowded around the Conference Table of the Conciliar Church- The licety and validity of the "New Mass" and the "New Sacraments", the heresies of Vatican II, the utter surrender to the maxims of the world, and the utter destruction of the Supernatural.
And... lastly... Our Lady of Fatima... who???
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. You are our only Hope!
[26] The fairies are not to be seized on, and brought to answer for the hurt they do. So also the ecclesiastics vanish away from the tribunals of civil justice.
[27] The ecclesiastics take from young men the use of reason, by certain charms compounded of metaphysics, and miracles, and traditions, and abused Scripture, whereby they are good for nothing else but to execute what they command them. The fairies likewise are said to take young children out of their cradles, and to change them into natural fools, which common people do therefore call elves, and are apt to mischief.
[28] In what shop or operatory the fairies make their enchantment, the old wives have not determined. But the operatories of the clergy are well enough known to be the universities, that received their discipline from authority pontifical.
[29] When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.
[30] The fairies marry not; but there be amongst them incubi that have copulation with flesh and blood. The priests also marry not.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994 . . . Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness . . . Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness, and to Whom it Accrueth . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/leviathan-part-iv-of-the-kingdom
[26] The fairies are not to be seized on, and brought to answer for the hurt they do. So also the ecclesiastics vanish away from the tribunals of civil justice.
[27] The ecclesiastics take from young men the use of reason, by certain charms compounded of metaphysics, and miracles, and traditions, and abused Scripture, whereby they are good for nothing else but to execute what they command them. The fairies likewise are said to take young children out of their cradles, and to change them into natural fools, which common people do therefore call elves, and are apt to mischief.
[28] In what shop or operatory the fairies make their enchantment, the old wives have not determined. But the operatories of the clergy are well enough known to be the universities, that received their discipline from authority pontifical.
[29] When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.
[30] The fairies marry not; but there be amongst them incubi that have copulation with flesh and blood. The priests also marry not.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994 . . . Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness . . . Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness, and to Whom it Accrueth . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/leviathan-part-iv-of-the-kingdom