(Rome) Pope Francis threatens to suspend all priests of a whole diocese in Nigeria a divinis. The ultimatum expires on July 8th.
The conflict is already going back to 2012. At that time Pope Benedict XVI., shortly before retiring his office, assinged a new bishop for the diocese of Ahiara.
The priests and faithful of the diocese have since hindered the new Bishop Peter Ebere from taking possession of his diocese because he does not belong to the Mbaise people as did his predecessor.
Monsignor Okpaleke is Ibo. Cardinal John Onaiyekan, Archbishop of Abuja, has been an Apostolic Administrator of Ahiara ever since.
The Ahiara diocese was established by Pope John Paul II in 1987 and is a suffragan diocese of the Archdiocese of Owerri. Bishop Okpaleke is only the second bishop of the diocese. The number of Catholics in the diocese is more than half a million or about 80 percent of the population. The number of diocesan priests has increased from less than 50 to more than 130 since its establishment.
Last Thursday the Vatican press office announced that Pope Francis had received a delegation from the Ahiara diocese in private audience, accompanied by Cardinal Onaiyekan and Bishop Opaleke. The delegation undertook an ad limina pilgrimage to the tombs of the apostles in Rome.
Discussions about "the tormented situation of the church in Ahiara" also took place with the Cardinal Secretary.
In the audience with Pope Francis, he explained to the delegation that the situation in Ahiara was "unacceptable". After "careful consideration", he maintained there would be "appropriate measures".
What the Press Office did not communicate so directly, but the intelligence service Fides wrote: Pope Francis gave an ultimatum, primarily to the priests of the diocese. Either they accept within 30 days without reservation the appointed bishop, or they will be suspended a divinis. The ultimatum has been public since Thursday.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Vatican.va (screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
Francis continues his liberal agenda. "Amoris Laetitia" says it all. Accept or be sent to a Vatican Siberia. Francis has its leftist agenda that appears to be anti Christian and worthy of criticism as demonic.
ReplyDeleteDamned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
ReplyDeletein between my two jobs, I'm studying from my M.A. in History at college 3x a night. Lots of work, but work it. My speciality will be Asian history (naturally), but I also love Ancient Egypt, and Medieval times.
ReplyDeleteWhat Pope Francis might do with this diocese is positively Medieval...suspending all the priests or suppressing the diocese. I've studied a lot, and I don't this any pope has used this More recent kind of power since the 15th century or before. Popes have disbanded or suppressed religious Orders, but that's about all.
I don't think most people know it, but most recent Popes have been more or less figureheads, in the mold of the British monarchy. Pius XII wielded some real power, and John XXIII called Vatican II....but the wheels of the government of the Church and the decisions were usually done by the various Sacred Congregations and the Secretary of State and the Pope would just sign off on them....rubber stamping what had already been decided. Had Paul VI used real Papal power like Francis, he could have refused the Novus Ordo...because believe it or not, he did have severe reservations about it. But he rubber stamped the radicals plans and then sat back and suffered the consequences.
John Paul II excommunicated the SSPX not on his own initiative, but on the advice of a committee of rad liberal Cardinals pushing him to punish them immediately, in 1988.
This kind of Papal power Francis has used in Nigeria seems to be valid, because as it is, if let go the diocese would be torn apart. It's not about rad liberals against Catholics, but rather a tribal affair. Just like in India were part of my family is from, peoplefrom one group do not accept people from another who have a different language and customs. The very dark skinned minority in India, who were actually the original inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent, are in many instances treated as the lowest of the low in society.
One wonders what will happen after the deadline with this move by Francis. It reminds me of Medieval times, when Ppes put whole countires under Papal interdict.
One thing is certain, this move will only make a growing number of people in the Vatican and out hate Francis more. Which may in the long run be a good thing.
Damian Malliapalli
This is setting a precedent. Any rebellious diocese not thinking like Cupich and his "mature" Christianity will be dealt with. As for Paul VI, he brought in a Protestant committee to redesign the liturgy. Pius XII found out that P6 was secretly meeting with the Russian Communists. He exiled him to Milan.------In retrospect, you can see what happened. With the death of Pius XII, Paul was rehabilitated and had support for the papacy. Before his death, he was known to have stated that "the smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican.----Malachi Martin in his writings has prophesied this all. We have the heretical pope that he wrote about in "The Jesuits". "Amoris Laetitia" is not magisterium but an open invitation to "fornication, adultery, and sodomy". This is the hidden Third Secret.
DeleteBeing "exiled" to Milan is no exile at all. The Milan See has often been the stepping stone to the papacy---which is exactly what happened with the heretic Paul VI. Stop your wishful thinking and delusions.
DeleteI think you're greatly understating Paul VI's agency in bringing out the new missal.
DeleteIt wasn't forced on him. He was basically content with it - not a surprise, since he had been quite a liturgical radical by the 19950's.
Pius XII officially approved "the Liturgical Change Committee" in 1948 & allowed all type of innovations the last decade of his reign.
DeleteNovus Ordo Watch.Org is in complete denial over these facts.
I meant 3 nights a week on the above, not 3x a night!
ReplyDeleteDamian Malliapalli
lol!
DeleteThe SSPX was suspended a divinis, it hasnt stopped them.
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX's a divinis suspension has very much stopped. They have never come close to drawing in a huge number of Catholics because of the SSPX's suspension. Bishop Fellay wants regularization because he knows he needs that to get rid of the stigma of not being in full communion with the Church which has stopped a large amount of Catholics from going to the SSPX.
DeleteWait a minute--I don't get it. I have just been reading Amoris Laetitia Chapter 8 and some of the conclusions being drawn from it, and the next thing I know, Pope Francis the Merciful starts demanding letters of apology addressed to him personally, and promptly, too! Doesn't he know that an "adult" spirituality (as Cardinal Cupich recently explained) needs no interference from "outside authority" any more? What if the priests under threat of being suspended a divinis for rejecting the bishop Pope Francis appointed are only doing their very best within the concrete complexities of their limitations? Even if what they did made the poor pontiff sad, it could be exactly what God is asking of them at this very moment! Why doesn't the form letter demanded of them allow for this possibility? It seems to me that Pope Francis' pastoral approach is embarrassingly out of date. Who knows? Maybe the Holy Spirit has some "surprises" in store, even for him.
ReplyDeleteAh, Justina, that kind of logic is going to cause you to develop a nervous twitch, but I like your thinking.
DeleteThe only consistency in these men is their inconsistency. But nobody on the inside calls them on it so it doesn't matter. We can speculate all we like.
I don't think most people who have commented so far have actually read the article. The bishop was appointed by BXVI in 2012, and was immediately opposed by a group of the "faithful" because he is of the "wrong" tribe. For once, I think Francis' action is justified.
ReplyDeleteI read the article & couldn't make heads or tails of why the dioceses is being threatened with suspension?
DeleteIf a child takes a forbidden cookie from the jar, certainly some kind of action is called for: a time out, the denial of dessert, or the short-term removal of a favorite toy. But what if that child has her mouth duct-taped while being locked in a closet for 48 hours, or is thrashed to the point of broken bones? Just because a situation may need to be addressed doesn't necessarily justify any possible way of addressing it.
DeleteA good parent, in exercising disciplinary measures, emphasizes that lying and stealing won't be tolerated because they are morally wrong, for the parent and for everyone else as well as for the child. The commandments of the good and loving God must be followed at all times by all people. One of those commandments is for children to obey their parents; but that commandment, like any other, cannot be wrenched out of context and made a law unto itself.
An abuser, on the other hand, punishes only in order to get across--quite indelibly--the message that one never does anything, either right or wrong, to cross HIM. Because he (or she) is the one that makes the rules up, the rules don't apply to him, and therefore, all offenses become essentially personal. An abuser is an abuser because he thinks that his position makes everything he does automatically right; how CAN it be wrong if he, the one with God's own authority over the family, is the one doing it? In vain are Scripture, reason, or the rights of others invoked against such a mentality; all can be twisted in support of the abuser's own actions, and all reliably is. It was the child, was it not, who took the cookie in the first place; and therefore, she deserves whatever she gets! It's right there in the Fourth Commandment; look it up!
To which kind of parent can our "Papa Francesco" be rightly compared--"Papa Francesco," who demands not primarily that these priests examine their attitudes towards others but that they apologize at once, specifically and primarily TO HIM; who refuses to answer the Dubia as it would be manifestly in the best interest of the universal Church for him to do, while here invoking the 'goid of the universal Church'if and only if it happens to dovetail with his own agenda; who dismisses Cardinal Mueller's priestly collaborators without cause on the grounds that he "is the Pope," and therefore shouldn't have to give any reasons? I have, by the way, read the article about the situation in this diocese, and that is all I claim to know about it. But the modus operandi of the man handling the situation in his characteristically capricious, malicious, and mistaking-God-for-me kind of way is becoming ever more familiar to all of us with each passing day.
I thought "inculturation" was important to these madcap modernists? Why do you think Gomez was placed in Los Angeles?
DeleteThe headline is wrong. The diocese wasn't threatened with suspension.
DeleteNow, the respected canon lawyer Ed Peters is contending that the way Pope Francis is handling this situation isn't really that bad after all. If it isn't, one wonders why the cavalry has to come galloping, once again, to the rescue. Nevertheless, it is the analysis Dr. Peters offers which is truly the most revealing. He argues, and I quote, that "Francis' demand for 'total obedience' must not be read literally (the implications of such literality being too bizarre to contemplate)." Well, Dr. Peters, I've got news--start contemplating!
ReplyDeleteTitus 3:10: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid".
ReplyDeleteAdmonition #1 could be considered the dubia letter, and Admonition #2, the letter requesting a private audience. What's left now is: avoid.
CARDINAL LEHMANN’S SECRET SCROLL
ReplyDeleteA high ranking personality of the church, reflecting the above truth in 2013, asked the Nigerian bishops a fundamental question “But how did the name of Peter Okpaleke ever enter the secret list of bishopric enquiry of Ahiara diocese?”. The question remains unanswered except by the hackers of the list. The answer was left arguably in the realm of incontrovertible high probability of arbitrary manipulation and force until the recent revelation of the certainty of stealing was made by Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Germany in 2016. Lehmann is a Cardinal of Mainz in Germany and once a participator in the Papal conclave, the selection of Popes and an insider in the Vatican happenings before his retirement. He revealed and asserted that, “names of candidates submitted to the Vatican as potential bishops are being vetoed by “unauthorized people”. He adds more elaborately that, “in recent years, the official list of names has been crossed out and a new list sent from Rome”… “This represents a burdensome, intolerable disrespect for the church in a given country”. The Cardinal’s revelation of manipulation of list vindicated the people of Ahiara diocese that a strange priest was arbitrarily and fraudulently grafted into Ahiara list by, according to Cardinal Lehmann, those who have “knowledge of how things work in Rome”. Therefore Ahiara Mbaise did not arbitrarily and only speculatively award the certificate of the treachery and infraction to the proficiency and influence of Okpaleke’s brother Cardinal and his intimate friends who all have “knowledge of how things work in Rome”. Through this privilege, they have also made multiple bishops for their own kinsmen, province and diocese where almost every town have indigenous bishop and like Oliver Twist, still want more and want to be everywhere.
Amazing post..very informative...keep it up.please join this website,
ReplyDeletethank you for join
goldenslot
gclub
gclub casino