{"id":6014,"date":"2025-01-08T19:46:26","date_gmt":"2025-01-08T19:46:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/?p=6014"},"modified":"2025-01-08T19:46:26","modified_gmt":"2025-01-08T19:46:26","slug":"recognize-and-resist-is-real-the-first-anniversary-of-the-historic-backlash-to-fiducia-supplicans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/2025\/01\/08\/recognize-and-resist-is-real-the-first-anniversary-of-the-historic-backlash-to-fiducia-supplicans\/","title":{"rendered":"Recognize and Resist is Real: The First Anniversary of the Historic Backlash to Fiducia Supplicans"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\">Recognize and Resist is Real: The First Anniversary of the Historic Backlash to Fiducia Supplicans<\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\">\n<div class=\"post-header-line-1\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"post-body-6699260355158126142\" class=\"post-body entry-content\">\n<p class=\"p1\">\n<div class=\"separator\"><b><a href=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/a\/AVvXsEguuPbmaHBcauVsFKZ0tlSr22HKrSQPZ9wvHt_wzuJWDU20aBHRt-_bHEm_Dx0Tk0Vj8fTyx9nsOGibs1oZHTnhX1pe00MJFyQCKhb3ua7ASiBel5B6rAo3DKqMgRozZSFrCfPhQkxOjVtw_7Y_IgLD2ZxIhqZtNqQa7rSGfTUvm6D-33v46ZBZHw\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/img\/a\/AVvXsEguuPbmaHBcauVsFKZ0tlSr22HKrSQPZ9wvHt_wzuJWDU20aBHRt-_bHEm_Dx0Tk0Vj8fTyx9nsOGibs1oZHTnhX1pe00MJFyQCKhb3ua7ASiBel5B6rAo3DKqMgRozZSFrCfPhQkxOjVtw_7Y_IgLD2ZxIhqZtNqQa7rSGfTUvm6D-33v46ZBZHw=w640-h360\" alt=\"\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" data-original-height=\"421\" data-original-width=\"750\" \/><\/a><\/b><\/div>\n<p><b><\/p>\n<p><\/b>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><b>The Orthodox Resurgence<\/b><\/p>\n<div>\n<div>\u00a0by Serre Verweij<\/div>\n<div>for Rorate Caeli<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">A year ago, Victor Manuel Fernandez came out with a press release that was meant to clarify\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0(or to placate its numerous critics).\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0had managed to be the most controversial Vatican document since Humanae Vitae, 55 years earlier. In fact, it was more controversial. The alleged clarification ended up \u2018de facto\u2019 annulling many key parts of\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0itself. Now, a year later, the document has become largely a dead letter. What exactly happened?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>A clarification, in fact a retraction<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p><a name=\"more\"><\/a>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">The press release on January 4 2024, served as an obvious form of damage control. It did not just differ from\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0in terms of its tone or emphasis, but it also outright contradicted its actual content at various points.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Examples include:<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<ul class=\"ul1\">\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">*Its very existence\u00a0<i>(Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0made clear that it would be the\u00a0<i>final<\/i>\u00a0response to questions regarding blessings for same sex couples. Yet, this press release followed less than three weeks later).<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">*It allowed bishops to provide restricting guidelines for the document\u2019s interpretation, contrary to the text of the document itself, that explicitly forbade both bishops\u2019 conferences and individual bishops to provide clear guidelines.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">*It affirmed\u00a0<i>FS<\/i>\u00a0as consistent with a 2021\u00a0<i>Responsum\u00a0<\/i>by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, that explicitly ruled out any blessing of homosexual unions.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">It was the last point that completely gutted revolutionary potential of\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>, less than a month after it was published.\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0itself has been vague precisely on that issue. It spoke of blessings for same sex \u2018couples\u2019 and was ambiguous on whether this involved blessing the unions\/relationships of such couples.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">After the press release Pope Francis repeated several times that homosexual people could be blessed, but not their unions or activist groups, in one interview even describing the blessing of gay\u00a0<i>unions<\/i>\u00a0as contrary to natural law. Supportive declarations by liberal bishops quickly dried up and even Father James Martin removed a post that supported blessing gay\u00a0<i>unions<\/i>\u00a0and replaced it with a post about blessing\u00a0<i>couples<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Now the document has largely become an embarrassing chapter in the pontificate of Pope Francis. A document that turned many bishops and cardinals against him, while overshadowing his multiyear Synod on Synodality and the final days of his pontificate. To properly understand this political blunder, it is important to know background and context.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>The prelude to\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Moderate progressives attacked the\u00a0<i>Responsum<\/i>, largely by not denying its reassertion of the Church\u2019s teachings on marriage, or its attempt to avoid confusion on this issue, but by rejecting its complete prohibition of any blessing of homosexual relationships, since they are sinful sexual relationships. It was this element that progressives hoped above all to see abandoned.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Fernandez suggested he\u2019d be open to this, as he only stood by the traditional definition of marriage, while refusing to fully reaffirm the\u00a0<i>Responsum<\/i>\u00a0in an interview with\u00a0<i>InfoVaticana<\/i>, shortly after his appointment as the new prefect for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith was announced. Following that, Pope Francis (possibly ghostwritten by Fernandez) actually provided a response to new dubia by orthodox cardinals, in which he refused to categorically rule out blessing of same sex unions, as long as these weren\u2019t equated with marriage. There appeared to be an opening. Then, shortly after the synod, the bishops of the world were blind-sighted by the sudden release of\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>, without any synodal basis, with the synod in fact still ongoing.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">The dissidents pushed for change during the first session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2023, but the majority of bishops stood firmly for the Church\u2019s sexual ethics.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">The dissenting viewpoints can be roughly divided into five positions, ranging from radically heretical to doctrinally ambiguous and pastorally irresponsible:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p3\"><span class=\"s1\">1. Homosexual relationships are normal and should receive a form of recognition, hopefully with gay marriage getting recognized eventually. Gay adoption is normal, too. This is the stance taken by the most radically liberal Protestant churches in recent years. A perspective that few bishops currently profess openly, with bishop Bonny from Antwerpen in Belgium being a rare, notorious proponent.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p3\"><span class=\"s1\">2. The Church\u2019s definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman is correct and should remain clear (at least officially for now), but homosexual relationships and other extramarital relationships, are (a lesser) good, too. They should receive some form of recognition and the Church\u2019s teachings on sex outside of marriage is either outdated and wrong, or idealistic and worth ignoring. This is the attempted compromise pushed within Anglicanism, that resulted in schism, as well as the stance taken by Germany\u2019s Synodal Path and the more liberal bishops in Austria and Switzerland.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p3\">\n<div>3. Homosexual relationships do contain sinful elements (illicit sexual contact), but (supposedly) \u2018stable\u2019, \u2018loving\u2019 and \u2018committed\u2019 relationships have good elements, too. The Church should focus more on this and less on the sinful aspects. As a result either:<\/div>\n<div>3a. The union can be blessed.<\/div>\n<div>3b. The positive aspects of the union can be blessed (in a way that to most people it looks like blessing the unions).<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p3\"><span class=\"s1\">This is the stance taken by Cardinal Sch\u00f6nborn in recent years, as well as by Scicluna from Malta and Archbishop Herv\u00e9 Giraud of Sens-Auxerre in France.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p3\"><span class=\"s1\">4. Homosexual unions being wrong (or right) is irrelevant, as a blessing imparts the good of God even on sin and therefore does not affirm sin, while blessing it. This (or something along these lines given the ambiguity) was the odd position taken by Philippe Bordeyne, President of the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p3\"><span class=\"s1\">5. Blessings for everyone (except maybe \u2018awful\u2019 reactionaries), as they show the \u2018motherly face of the Church\u2019. Blessings are important, even if they cause doctrinal confusion, because being\u00a0<i>pastora<\/i>l is essential and so is blessing individuals or larger groups of people in whatever situation. This is the liberal Latin American tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\"><i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>, as the work of Fernandez, ended up being largely based on position 5, but makes allusions to position 4 and can be (and quickly was) seen as supportive of positions 3a and 3b too. The most important example being:<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\"><i>\u201ca blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>blessing that descends from God upon those who\u2014recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help\u2014do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">The fact that\u00a0<i>FS\u00a0<\/i>spoke of blessing \u2018couples\u2019, as opposed to \u2018unions\u2019 or \u2018relationships, seemed like little more than arbitrary word choice, which would give \u2018popesplainers\u2019 the most barebone level of plausible deniability against assertions that Rome had changed Catholic doctrine on homosexual relationships.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Only the most radical progressives had real reasons to be upset about it and even they could feel happy, knowing that steps were being made that could lead to their extremist positions being embraced down the line. Bonny expressed happiness regarding the document.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">The reaffirmation that homosexual relationships couldn\u2019t be blessed in a way that seemed similar to marriage offered little consolation to the orthodox faithful, as the door finally seemed to be opened to blessing extramarital sexual unions. The fact that the sexual activity in this unions was still called sinful\u00a0<i>in Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0was soon to become a dead letter, and both the mainstream media, as well as the modernist bishops in Germany and Belgium reacted to the document as such.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>A radical reversal<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">The press release attempted to desperately make the distinction between couples and their unions\/relationships (which\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0had not outright described, but left as a possible orthodox interpretation) into a reality. Not only can\u2019t gay couples receive any blessing that even remotely resembles a\u00a0<i>marriage ceremony<\/i>, they can\u2019t have no\u00a0<i>their union\u00a0<\/i>blessed, period, just as the 2021\u00a0<i>Responsum<\/i>\u00a0said. Further limitations were also added with the blessing not only being forbidden in connection to a civil union or having any form of rite similar to marriage, but with it needing to take place\u00a0<i>away from the altar<\/i>\u00a0and in ways that completely\u00a0<i>avoid scandal<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Only the two\u00a0<i>individuals<\/i>\u00a0who form the couple can be blessed, as all sinners can be. People rightfully objected that when a homosexual couple asks to be blessed as a couple and presents themselves as such, it is practically impossible to bless them as a couple, but not their union. The distinction between \u2018couples\u2019 and the \u2018union\u2019 that binds them\u00a0<i>as a couple<\/i>\u00a0might be interesting to philosophers, but does not exist in the real world.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Fernandez however made clear in the press release, that priests could only make the sign of the cross over each individual separately, not over the two together. Additionally, the prayer described by Fernandez in the \u2018clarification\u2019 did not focus on any alleged positive elements in extramarital or homosexual relationships, but instead made a more clear reference to such relationships being problematic and requiring grace to change sinners.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">This raises the question why the Vatican needed to release a document to state the fact, known to virtually all, that the Church can bless\u00a0<i>sinners, but not sin<\/i>\u00a0and that priests can pray for struggling sinners who desire to receive God\u2019s support. It also raises the question whether the blessing of sinners is somehow possible as non-liturgical. Is the blessing that people receive during communion when they approach the priest with their arms crossed a \u2018non-liturgical blessing\u2019, even though it takes place during the liturgy? As a beloved Dutch priest, Father Elias, questioned, a year ago (loosely translated):<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p3\"><span class=\"s1\">What defines a \u2018blessing\u2019 by a cleric? Isn\u2019t the difference between a natural benevolent personal gesture and a blessing by an ordained priest, that the latter blessing not only is recognizable as such by a specific form, specific words or a sign, which were transferred by Sacred Tradition, but also by the fact it is given with a specific mandate of, and reference to, God as transcendent Source of authority? Which has to be recognized, as well as intended, by both the mandated person, as by the person seeking the blessing? So isn\u2019t it the case, that a clerical blessing\u00a0<b><i>is\u00a0<\/i><\/b>in essence a \u2018ritual\u2019, by its very nature, with an objective meaning? Looking at meaning and origin of a priestly blessing makes a \u2018non-liturgical\u2019 blessing per definition a meaningless contradiction, denying the essence of the given blessing by the mediator of grace from a higher authority.\u00a0<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Why was a \u2018unique development\u2019 regarding \u2018non-liturgical blessings\u2019 important when it appeared to result in a return to the status quo?<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">The sudden backtracking on homosexual relationships was prompted by the widespread backlash to\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>. Within days of its release, supermajorities of bishops in various African countries blatantly defied the Vatican and indicated they opposed the document. Within roughly 24 hours the bishops of Malawi rejected the document, followed by those in Zambia, Namibia, Benin, Togo and Angola and S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 (the latter rejecting an earlier\u00a0<i>Responsum\u00a0<\/i>from Fernandez that allowed practicing homosexuals and transsexuals to serve as godparents, as well). Then Cardinal Ambongo, long viewed as a more centrist prelate and an important ally of Pope Francis who even serves on his council of cardinal advisers, turned against FS and called on African bishops from across the continent to provide a united response against it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">The bishops from Poland and Hungary (who include several cardinals) also rejected FS, along with the Ukrainian Catholic and Chaldean Catholic rites. The bishops of Haiti, including Cardinal Langlois (named cardinal by Pope Francis), rejected it. Even in South America, Cardinal Sturla, another Francis appointee long viewed as a liberal. openly rejected the document during an interview where he also signaled a stronger stance against abortion and euthanasia.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Ironically the American bishops who are often portrayed by liberal media as Pope Francis\u2019 fiercest opponents stayed largely neutral during the whole affair.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">On top of that, the document faced significant pushback from both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox churches who released official declarations condemning it and even froze ecumenical dialogue as a result. While some liberal prelates might prefer pretending Anglican orders are valid and starting intercommunion with liberal Protestants, Pope Francis does not appear ready to give up on the dream of reunion with the Eastern and Oriental schismatic churches.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">The Vatican under Francis, clearly giving in to conservatives and providing clarification, represented the exact opposite of what had happened after the release of\u00a0<i>Amoris Laetitia<\/i>. While the radical modernist faction in the Vatican was likely prepared to ignore criticisms from the same dubia cardinals it had ignored for nearly a decade, it clearly was not ready to face an open revolt of an entire continent.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">While the rejection by African bishops centered primarily on homosexual relationships, they did not approve of the permissive approach of\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0being applied to divorced and remarried or to unmarried couples, either. The Polish and Russian Catholic bishops went further and explicitly rejected the blessing of heterosexual couples in extramarital and divorced remarried relationships, too, while the Africans did not apply\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0to polygamous couples, in spite of pressure to implement a local pastoral approach for polygamists.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">The African bishops went even beyond the press release. While it allowed bishops to restrict the local implementation, it forbade a total prohibition on priests to bless couples in irregular situations. Yet, the African continental declaration did just that. And even more surprising, this declaration was approved by Pope Francis \u00e1nd Fernandez. Worth noting, too, is that both this continental declaration and the press release left authority regarding the implementation of\u00a0<i>FS\u00a0<\/i>with the local bishop and not the national bishops\u2019 conference, further confirming that Pope Francis had moved away from a stance supportive of doctrinal authority for such ecclesial bodies.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Some commentators predicted that the Vatican might follow a two speed approach to reform, endorsing a radical liberal interpretation of\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0shortly after approving the African rejection. Nothing of the sort ended up happening, however. Neither Pope Francis, nor Fernandez, endorsed anything resembling a blessing of gay, unmarried or divorced and remarried couples after the controversy, neither publicly nor privately. No bishop, whether in Austria, Switzerland or Luxembourg claimed Pope Francis had privately endorsed any gay blessings after the controversy surrounding\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Requests for blessings of homosexual couples ended up being rare; and scandalous photos were even more rare after the initial few weeks after FS was released. Though liberal Vincentian Father Joseph S. Williams in Chicago provided a scandalous blessing of a gay union in the spring of 2024, he ended up having to apologize, in spite of serving under arch-liberal cardinal Cupich. Pope Francis, Fernandez and Cupich ended up enforcing the orthodox practice regarding homosexuality.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">There are various factors that can help explain the near universal African (and to some extent Eastern European) backlash against\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0which forced this unprecedented about-face by Pope Francis.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul class=\"ul1\">\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\"><i>Amoris Laetitia<\/i>\u00a0gave the pretense of being based on the two sessions of the Synod on the Family (even though it went beyond this on key points and re-used rejected radical proposals in watered down form), while\u00a0<i>Fiduia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0represented a blatant sidestepping of the ongoing synod.<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">Increasing awareness of the flourishing vocations and number of faithful in Africa, which has emboldened the local churches.<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">The lack of discretionary authority for local bishops to decide on the implementation of\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0which\u00a0<i>Amoris Laetitia<\/i>\u00a0did provide.<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">The fact that access to the sacraments for adulterous divorced remarried in certain liberal Western countries is something African prelates can more easily \u2018agree to disagree\u2019 on than any seeming approval of homosexual relationships.<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\">A general weariness regarding Pope Francis\u2019 pontificate, scandals, controversial foreign policy decisions, the lack of proper communication before\u00a0<i>Traditionis Custodes<\/i>\u00a0was imposed, which has been perceived at the Vatican\u2019s lukewarm response to the controversial Synodal Path.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"li2\"><span class=\"s1\"><span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Regardless of the reason, the weaponized ambiguity popularized by\u00a0<i>Amoris Laetitia<\/i>\u00a0had finally faced a rebuttal it couldn\u2019t ignore.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\"><b>Conclusion: Synodality undermining the synodal oligarchy<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Orthodox prelates from Africa, Eastern Europe and even the Netherlands collegially rejected\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>. They used synodal mechanisms and language to reject radical proposals pushed by a loud liberal minority. Who preaches a lot about synodality, but rarely practices it. Decentralization of authority to episcopal conferences and individuals bishops, synodality on the continental level, the third world and ecumenics, all have been touted as important issues by modernists, yet these all ended up working against the homosexualist agenda.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">Liberals have repeatedly touted collegiality and the peripheries, while actually pushing the agenda of a minority Western elite during the various synods under Pope Francis. Now, the hypocrisy and contradictions finally ended up undoing the liberal campaign to normalize homosexuality within Catholicism.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">If\u00a0<i>Fiducia Supplicans<\/i>\u00a0has any real lasting effects it will likely be that African bishops are aware of their growing influence and that many of Pope Francis\u2019 own cardinals are now weary of another Pope like him.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Recognize and Resist is Real: The First Anniversary of the Historic Backlash to Fiducia Supplicans &nbsp; The Orthodox Resurgence \u00a0by Serre Verweij for Rorate Caeli A year ago, Victor Manuel Fernandez came out with a press release that was meant to clarify\u00a0Fiducia Supplicans\u00a0(or to placate its numerous critics).\u00a0Fiducia Supplicans\u00a0had managed to be the most controversial &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/2025\/01\/08\/recognize-and-resist-is-real-the-first-anniversary-of-the-historic-backlash-to-fiducia-supplicans\/\" class=\"more-link\">Sigue leyendo <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Recognize and Resist is Real: The First Anniversary of the Historic Backlash to Fiducia Supplicans<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categoria"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6014"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6014\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6015,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6014\/revisions\/6015"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthcounts.com\/blogtraducciones\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}