This week on “Inside the Vatican,” Gerry and I discuss new comments by the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Arturo Sosa, about Pope Francis’ critics. “The attacks against Pope Francis in the church today,” Father Sosa said, are “a fight between those who want the church dreamed of by the Second Vatican Council and those who do not want this.”
Next, Archbishop Bernard Hebda of Minneapolis-St. Paul has become the first bishop to be asked by the Vatican to investigate a fellow bishop according to new Vatican laws on sexual abuse investigations. Gerry and I explain why although at least one investigation has been ordered, the laws have a long way to go before they are fully implemented.
Finally, we talk about Pope Francis’ recent dialogues with Eastern Catholic bishops, and what he means when he says that unity does not mean uniformity when it comes to the Eastern churches. We also explain, briefly, the differences between Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and unpack the significance of Pope Francis’ gift of relics of St. Peter to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.
Links from the show:
- Father Sosa: Attacks against Pope Francis are aimed at influencing the next conclave
- Analysis: Why do some Catholics oppose Pope Francis?
- Minnesota archbishop opens sexual misconduct investigation into fellow bishop
- Pope urges Eastern Catholic bishops to promote ecumenism
- Pope Francis gives Orthodox patriarch relics of St. Peter
I'm not sure why you put any stock into Sosa's comments about swinging the conclave. He's denied the existence of satan as a personal entity, which is heresy. He said similar things a year ago, and his PR team saved his behind, but this time, no such response.
It's really disgusting that the head of the Jesuits is a literal heretic and America says nothing, demands nothing.
You might want to substantiate your comments.
Very simple to find evidence of Fr. Sosa claiming the devil is symbolic:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/jesuit-superior-satan-is-a-symbolic-reality-60691
Plenty of other news agencies corroborating it if CNA isn't your tea. The Jesuits haven't denied it, nor claimed that his words are being twisted.
As far the existence of the devil as dogma?
From the Confession of Faith contained within the canons of Lateran IV
"[God] who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common. The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing. Man, however, sinned at the prompting of the devil."
It is Catholic dogma that the Devil is a spiritual creature, not some symbolic metaphor for evil.
So yes, Fr. Sosa is a heretic. He said pretty much the same thing back in 2017, but it got whitewashed by his PR: https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/06/08/spokesman-for-jesuit-chief-devil-remarks-must-be-read-in-context/
To my knowledge, there were no attempts at whitewashing and PR coverup this time.
Saying that the Devil is "symbolic" is not the same as saying that he does not have enormous power. "Symbols" are powerful in human life, because imagination is powerful, and so are "myths." As a matter of fact, I tell my literature students that "myths" are more "real" in terms of what they reveal about human life and consciousness, than the "periodical tables."
Yeah, sorry, that gobbledigook might have been convincing to 20th century historical critical scholars, but it's heresy. The devil is dogmatically a personal being, a fallen angel. To deny this is to deny dogma, and to thus be a heretic. Like Father Sosa. I don't really care if you want to talk about what kind of powers a symbol might have, it is Catholic dogma that the devil is a personal being, not a symbol. Period. No amount of Jesuitical obfuscation will make that not the case.
Michael, it is also Catholic dogma to live a Christian life of humility, but don't let that stop you from cementing your solid track of hubris
Jorge, allow me to rephrase your comment for you in a much more straight forward way: "I can't answer a word of your argument, so let me insult your character".
What is the Church dreamed of by Vatican II?
“The attacks against Pope Francis in the church today,” Father Sosa said, are “a fight between those who want the church dreamed of by the Second Vatican Council and those who do not want this.”
I rather would say, "A fight between those who want the church to remain in continuity with the Council and those who wanted the church to conform to their cultural view."
Vatican II was not the problem. Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI never wanted a departure from the continuity of the church. The corruption of the times was the problem and continues to be. The problem is now the leadership who wanted a wholesale change, didn't get it, but now have aged into positions of power and want to rewrite history and remake the church into the image they once thought would be.
What is overlooked is a deep well of interest in restoring the church to its spiritual foundation and stability. The "old hippies" just don't get it.
The "attacks" are by those terrified of losing their control over the Church, those terrified to be of the Holy Spirit, Who blows where She will. The antiquated way of being fully human is to dominate, to control. The two sides in struggle are the lungs of the Mystical Body; both are needed to be healthy. Far better to learn to breathe alternatively, in the at-onement of flowing Grace.
The wrestling is between those solely Christological (actually Jeezused, the Christ is not involved), terrified to let go of defining dogma and doctrine; and those who are willing to move with the Ruah/Holy Spirit, in the full tension of discernment.
The issue is not either/or; it is both/and. The Christian of the future will be a mystic, or... Karl Rahner.
The "attacks" are by those terrified of losing their control over the Church, those terrified to be of the Holy Spirit, Who blows where She will. The antiquated way of being fully human is to dominate, to control. The two sides in struggle are the lungs of the Mystical Body; both are needed to be healthy. Far better to learn to breathe alternatively, in the at-onement of flowing Grace.
The wrestling is between those solely Christological (actually Jeezused, the Christ is not involved), terrified to let go of defining dogma and doctrine; and those who are willing to move with the Ruah/Holy Spirit, in the full tension of discernment.
The issue is not either/or; it is both/and. Enough of boys squabbling in the sandbox over domination. The Mystical Body is evolving, what is the resistance?