THE MAGISTERIUM AFTER POPE FRANCIS (AN OPEN APPEAL TO POPE LEO XIV) Part One.

THE MAGISTERIUM AFTER POPE FRANCIS. (AN OPEN APPEAL TO POPE LEO XIV) PART I By Fr. Kenneth Chinkata Evurulobi, PhD. INTRODUCTION. My trek along progressive paths has been at two fronts: Nationalism and Liberation Theology. It has been a very lonely, painful and hazardous trek along paths littered with dangerous crossroads or junctions, including the landmines and ambushes which the enemy of progress might deem fit and rewarding to lay on these paths. One needed to thread with caution and make necessary efforts to avoid the landmines even as some devices are put in place, not only to notify the adventurer about the risks inherent in this kind of venture but also to show the way forward. Nonetheless, I am convinced it is a trek to the frontiers of liberation and freedom which alone has the power to return the Church, the nations and the human family back on the path of peace, security and progress. I have to observe immediately that the sensitivity of the subject I have undertaken to x-ray here is not lost to me as a priest, a theologian and a social justice activist. At the same time, I am not oblivious of the fact that some of these issues themselves dwell at the periphery of pastoral ministry - an area very close to the border between religion and politics. Remarkably, there is no interlocking, but a virulent discharge of contentious issues in pastoral ministry from the center to the periphery which a good pastor cannot shy away from but must resolutely address even at the risk of being clearly heard and grossly misrepresented by traducers. And having always to address or interrogate some of these issues and events that lie at the border area has helped me to establish the link between the divine collaborative stimulus as spelt out in the Book of Amos 3:7 (Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealed his secret unto his servants the prophets) and the definitive exhortation against ineptitude leadership as expressed in the Book of Proverbs 29:18 (Where there is no vision, the people perish) – on the one hand. And – on the other hand - the provision for liberation at the behest of divine intervention (Confer: Isaiah 45, Cyrus, the Divine Instrument). This biblical frame of mind is aptly captured and summarized by Sr. Marie Lucey, former Associate Director for Social Mission of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), U.S.A., thus: “I believe that prophetic witness means speaking the truth discovered through prayer, discernment, social analysis, and theological reflection - speaking and living the truth even when it brings suffering, ridicule, criticism…” 1 As a matter of emphasis, the submissions made herein presuppose and forcefully assert a clear-cut and incontestable distinction or the irreconcilable differences between the Person and Office of St. Peter (Chair of St. Peter) which was legitimately and validly occupied and exercised by Pope Francis and the Gallen Club which disguised as and hides behind the slogan of "Reforms"; between the powerful and influential contributions and sacrifices which the creativity of the Society of Jesus (S.J or Jesuits) has donated for the growth, development and progress of the Church (both Universal and the Local Churches) and Jesuitism which is the aberrant mutilation, subversion and total perversion of the Second Vatican Council. Originally, I have tried to evolve and explore the Principles of Theological Application in reference to Africa today. But the doctrinal situation of the Universal Church especially in Europe and America has also become too complex, challenging and highly disturbing. The first thing to do and the most realistic approach that can serve this adventurous task is to toy with the idea of the possibility of a new Nicaea. In this regard, an attempt to further excavate the possibility of evolving new paradigms of doctrinal reconstructions was thus initiated. The contention here is that a legitimate and valid plurality does not constitute substantial threat to unity. THE MAGISTERIUM AND REFORMS IN THE PONTIFICATE OF FRANCIS. There are many people who believe that the papacy of Francis opted for the term “reform” in place of “revolution”, not because it did not envision a revolution in Catholicism but to tune down the volume of heat and apprehension which the term ‘revolution” evokes within and outside ecclesiastical circles. In this regard, therefore, Pope Francis is a revolutionary force. He is a reform pope. According to George Weigel, Pope Francis is a revolutionary. And the revolution he proposes, however, is not a matter of economic or political prescription, but a revolution in the self-understanding of the Catholic Church: a re-energizing return to the Pentecostal fervor and evangelical passion from which the Church was born two millennia ago, and the summons to mission that accelerates the great historical transition from institutional-maintenance Catholicism to the Church of the New Evangelization. The determination of Pope Francis and the versatility of the attention he brings to bear on sensitive global issues and events that delineate and give due regards to divine positive action and the solicited human response arising thereof translate to and must be made to translate into a billboard of compulsorily stipulated action for theology, for pastoral action and for local, regional and international researchers on peace, security, growth, development and progress of the human family. Pope Francis did not pretend about his unreserved commitment to the poor and to the reform of the Roman Curia. The name he chose at the inception of his pontificate indicated the shape and direction the Petrine walk would take. Every shred of evidence proved that he remained resolute in his vision for and mission of accomplishing the reform of the 21st Century Catholicism. Right from the inception of his pontificate and going by the testimony of his Encyclicals (especially Laudato Si’, 2015 Apostolic Exhortation On Care For Our Common Home) and Apostolic Exhortations (precisely Fratelli Tutti, 2020 Encyclical On Fraternity And Social Friendship), the unwavering commitments of Pope Francis to transparency and humanitarian action have been quite evident and eventful. In the view of Pope Francis, social progress and the responsibility for the environment do not only task the general world population for peace and security, they have moral and spiritual significance for faith. Europe/America had raised very strong suspicions about Liberation Theology as an example of the broader Soviet/Marxist attempt to corrupt the “soft” underbelly of the western hemisphere. Is it possible then that what Europe/America detested and stigmatized in Latin America, it had re-packaged and exported to the Vatican - to corrupt the “soft underbelly” of the Holy See? This position is highly objectionable in reference, especially, to a secular society struggling to come to terms with issues of growth and sustainable development. Of course, the old ecclesiology did not pretend about its resentment against a revolutionary action as the most adequate response to human or society’s need for change especially when this approach could metamorphose into violence. This was, for example, the problem of the old hierarchy with the theologians of so-called Liberation Movements of Latin America. As the former bishop of Bueros Aeros, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio may not have had any objections to the official Church’s resentment against violence and the commitment to separate this from faith and its practice, but, at least, he was fully immersed into and deeply appreciated the scandalous situations of terror, corruption, violence, poverty, hunger, disease, injustice and insecurity which that region of the world presented to the conscience of the global family and to the Church’s missionary efforts. Admittedly too, the experience and personality of Jesuit Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as coming from a Third World country where such currents like Liberation Theology which celebrates and defends the poor, the oppressed and the rejects of the society in a manner that does not frown at violence and rebellion is historically significant for some of the members of a central Church institution like the Roman Curia especially those that have had their fingers bruised by the fires ignited by clericalism, legalism, centralism, careerism and triumphalism. Therefore, the presupposition that Pope Francis constitutes a detraction of the doctrines of the Church in particular and the basic tenets of Christianity in general – and by extension, the virtue of religion – and the subordination of these to a secular ideology may persist and flourish in an ecclesiastical environment groomed and inhabited by conservativism. Against this background, it has to be observed immediately that there are two sides to the paradox of Pope Francis’ doctrinal drama. The first is about a conscious dubious but subtly hidden concessioning of truth to some kind of invading and subversive imperialist forces which predate Pope Francis but which the Pontiff is attending to with the resolve of a liberator, the commitment of a pastor and the heart of a father in a leadership framework that encapsulates silent martyrdom. The second has got to do with the superficial appreciation of the proximity of divine positive action to a dying world and the emergency - if you like, a World Emergency - it evokes. All these impose urgent tasks on the Church with regards to existential decisions and missionary action today. In reality, there are some leading Church figures, including those who were close to the seat of the pontificate of Francis, who strongly believe that Pope Francis belongs to one of the compartments of the New Humanism that has its roots and finds its strongest anchorage in the vast but impenetrable domains of globalism. Those of them here argued that, in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation like Nigeria, for example, where mutual suspicion and well cultivated aggression draw the limits and dictate the pace of ethno-religious cooperation and collaborative action, and at a time when the general Christian consciousness is ruled by conservatism in reference, especially, to whatever the term “New Humanism” implies and how it is related to the New World Order and to the evolution of the One World Economy, One World Religion and One World Government, the actual intentions of the sponsors or progenitors of the pontificate and the goals they set out to achieve seem so artificial, acutely insinuating and exponentially a masquerade. The force and appeal of Pope Francis’ reforms derives from his authority and style as a world leader and its character as a collaborative effort in a framework of local, regional and global actions respectively, and cannot allow itself to be reduced to an embattled prisoner of a global conspiracy. Therefore, its demands and goals revolve around the revolutionary stimulus which an enslaved humanity and an endangered universe present to individual and collective responsibility. If a missionary incursion into the dreadful enclaves of globalism, with all its dangers and the arising scandal, is a demand upon members of the Church or upon the Christian faith or upon the respective faiths of the different world religions, so be it. In this way, the pontificate of Francis would necessarily raise some strong questions both for the bundle of reactionaries out there and for serious minded theologians everywhere on the real vocation of a Catholic Theologian with regards to application in and outside pastoral ministry. This is also palpably true with regards to the Magisterium. Historical precedents and antecedents of leadership both in the Church and in the secular society constitute a question for security, peace, unity and progress and this necessarily tasks the resolve and commitment of every honest thinker today. The theologian is not left out of this challenge and cannot, as a matter of conscience and for the sake of the significance which the question of leadership holds for the faith, pretend to be unaffected and thus maintain a neutrality. This challenge has made the leadership question a topical issue for Theology. Thus, it cannot be allowed to escape an active Christian consciousness that there abound today a multiplicity of problems and questions, issues and events that look up to theology for solutions, answers, explanations, clarifications and direction respectively so much so that the fullest attentions these deserve cannot be accommodated or addressed in one single theological treatise. Many of these problems or questions occur well beyond the confines of theology. Nevertheless, they posit a challenge to theology – for example, problems or issues like terrorism, corruption, injustice, hunger, disease, poverty, institutional progress, environment, ozone layer depreciation, world peace, e.t.c. Karl Rahner advocates that effective theology must not shy away from these challenges and thus insists that the theologian of today must possess a rare kind of insight and boldness and, at the same time, devise a genuine and authoritative podium of interactions upon which he or she can stand to launch an interrogation and a response, or initiate actions in respect of the questions or issues raised whenever such a need arises. Confronted by this task, the first question that arises – one which the theologian must contend with - is: Can there be a Political Theology? That is, can there exist a theological platform upon which one can stand to study, question, analyze and evaluate political ideologies, decisions and actions that have strong connections and implications for faith, if not immediately, but, at least, in a future referential framework of meaning and application? To approach this question in the affirmative has the inherent capacity to make a theologian transform into partisan politician, or become a participant observer in the political field. This is possible for a lay theologian - given the fact that the Church’s Social Teaching encourages lay members of Christ’s faithful to become responsible, resourceful and resilient politicians in view of providing quality leadership for the society and in their respective countries – but not possible for a Priest in the Catholic tradition who is vocationally banned from partisan politics. Given these considerations and the attendant questions and problems they breed for a resolute and investigative theologian - especially a Catholic Priest in a country like Nigeria where the critical urgency attached to the need for explanations and practical answers to corruption, terrorism and leadership failures have driven the faith out of the lives of many Nigerians and have gone ahead to raise issues about the existence of God and his relationship with the human family and, therefore, constitute stubborn challenges to the Church’s missionary engagements and to theology - I would rather hold the view that a Political Theology is very difficult and risky but not impossible and irrelevant. In fact, if for anything, it is a need for the Church and a radical obligation in charity which the Church’s faith deems fit to throw upon the shoulders of a convinced theologian. But as a resolute reform-minded researcher and having had the privilege of a very long trek along the progressive paths which harbor such dangerous junctions or crossroads like Marxist–Lenist ideology, atheistic communism and violent revolutionary actions – even as my inclination is fully conservative – the person of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the significance of his office as the Doctrinal Enforcer of the Holy Roman Catholic Church impressed themselves upon my priestly and theological consciousness. Some tensions may surely exist between a reform-minded theologian and the hierarchically constituted authority in the Church, yet such a situation does not have what it takes to stop worthwhile theological investigations and must not be allowed to source the weapons of oppression and intimidation against the person of the theologian. Definitely, when the progressive theological imperatives of mystical discernment, total openness and genuine disinterestedness are made to embrace and dissolve effortlessly into each other, and when the new reality that is a product of this marriage voluntarily hands itself over to be impregnated by the active faith of responsible citizenship, sweeping but authentic renewal is the name of this new reality. This genre of “renewal” has the capacity to speak both to the conservatives and progressives with power and authority and with the freshness of a new knowledge. This process is necessary and must be seen to be complete in itself or submit irself to be tested otherwise the new reality is not worth the name “renewal”, or “revolution”, or “revival”. It could be anything – including violence, terrorism, corruption, confusion, syncretism, etc. - but, surely, not ‘renewal” and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as Synodal. Nevertheless, a Synodal Church is not merely a Bergoglio Church and cannot, therefore, be considered as an aberrant reductionism. It is one necessary way of being Church today." But, whether in terms of spirituality, reform or social action, a theologian must learn to relate to the Holy See and to the common patrimony of our faith as one family of Abraham with canonical and orthodox theological lenses. THE LEGACY OF POPE FRANCIS: FRANCISCALISM OR A REFORMED CHURCH? Emphatically, every Pope has a vision and mission which he brings to bear on the Universal Catholic Church on specific topics. This is what makes a Pope unique in his own right and at his own time. But whatever he says or does and whichever direction his body-language sways to, one is only a Pope on the basis of his unalloyed commitment to the Mystical Body of Christ and fidelity to the Gospel. This is the significance of the title of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. Other titles of the Pope necessarily include “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City-State.” It is very interesting to note that, in the 2020 edition of the Vatican yearbook - the Annuario Pontificio - these titles appeared at the bottom of the page devoted to Pope Francis and were identified only as “historical” titles. Curiously, the 2020 edition of the Annuario Pontificio dropped the title “Vicar of Christ” on the listing for Pope Francis. In the 2020 edition of the Annuario, the page devoted to Pope Francis was headed simply by his name: Jorge Maria Bergoglio. Such a change would undoubtedly have required the approval of the Pontiff himself. Many contend that this could be the reason, perhaps, why some of his critics like Bishop Joseph Strickland and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano prefer to refer to him as Jorge Maria Bergoglio instead of Pope Francis. Past editions of the Annuario have always been headed by the titles accorded to the Pope, beginning with “Vicar of Jesus Christ.” In 2006, for instance, Pope Benedict XVI had dropped the traditional title of “Patriarch of the West.” The Vatican explained that the elimination of this title “could prove useful to ecumenical dialogue.” The statement also noted that the significance of that title “was never very clear, and over history has become obsolete and practically unusable.” The title “Vicar of Jesus Christ,” on the other hand, has a clear and unmistakable theological significance. German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that downgrading the title was a “theological barbarism.” To date the Vatican has not issued any explanation for the change. The theological question is: How is Jorge Maria Bergoglio different from Pope Francis? Or what is the difference between Franciscalism and the Magisterium? Franciscalism earns its nomenclatural value from but predates Pope Francis. It goes beyond the person of Pope Francis and does not pretend about a well-cultivated hostility that governs every of its meeting with efforts that seek to reduce it to a mere religious novelty or confine it to one of the many theological compartments in the pontifical household. The nomenclatural value of Franciscalism may have found its most appropriate explanation in the heuristic approach Pope Francis employs in addressing the topical issues that dominate and outrightly condition the human family and the entire universe but its roots lie outside the pontificate of Pope Francis and date back to the earliest periods of democratic developments in Europe and America when the virtue of religion constituted inescapable demands on the conscience, decisions and actions of the majority of the national population. It is an innovation which the resolute search for solutions and answers to the problems and questions of leadership failures, the arising pathologies and challenges thereof unveil for the resuscitation, growth and development of the human family and for different nations. In this way, Franciscalism denotes the power and appeal of every authentic democratic governance as well as the nature and character of resolute and responsible leadership both in their local, regional and global appeals especially as these relate to the Common Good and transparency. Franciscalism is, therefore, an attempt to recover and revitalize the greatly endangered concept of Democracy in its confrontation with the globalization project. The 4-Way Test that forms the rule of life of the Rotract Club of Nigeria could be very helpful -for those of us here in Nigeria - in one’s efforts to grasp and appreciate the focus and principles of application of Franciscalism in its local setting. The 4-Way Tests states thus: Is it the Truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build GOODWILL and better FRIENDSHIP? Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned? The sociological character of Franciscalism however evokes a paradox. Though it sprang up from and developed against the background of religion, its force and appeal take on additional value for political, economic and social action outside the arena of religion. It resists every attempt that tends to categorize it as a Church affair or any that may deem it fit to create it into a topic for debate in the superiority of religions – preferring instead that it be perceived as a neutral collaborator in the struggle for a better world. This ingeniously mediating and collaborative role which Franciscalism has set out to achieve has powerful implications for local, regional and global societies as well as for the environment and for the universe. Besides a presupposition of and even reliance on already constituted framework of governance and social action, Franciscalism emphasizes a radical appreciation of the creative impulse inherent in the life of every human person. The term employed here is “creativity”. Creativity evokes a prerogative of vision, mission, decision, responsibility and action. It is about the appreciation, development and deployment of talents to achieve humanitarian goals. Ideologically, it is a bold statement on the global emergency for social justice and human solidarity and the inescapable demands these impose on our shoulders as members of the human family imbued with responsibility and freedom. It is an encapsulated Christian ideology that concerns itself with the task of drawing up a collaborative agenda for the new humanism as it pertains, especially, to the growth, development and progress of the human family and for the protection and preservation of the universe. Thus, through collaborative efforts with convinced, resolute and resourceful private or public actors, international organizations and cooperate world bodies (for example, the United Nations, European Union, African Union) and riding on the support of powerful and influential governments, Franciscalism is a positive force for change and progress of the human family with both local, regional and international resonance. The arcane lump of humanity called Nigeria is an issue for Franciscalism. For example, the person and administration of former president Goodluck Ebele Jonathan were naturally infused with very potent seeds of revitalization, creativity and social progress that describe and satisfy the cravings of many developing nations and national governments especially those in the third world bracket. This was Franciscalism as a nascent ideological cultivation on the Nigerian soil. It took its roots in the events of Nigeria’s departure from the throes of militarization in 1999, acquired some definite form and shape during the former presidents Mathew Olusengun Obasanjo and late Alhaji Musa Yar’dua’s administrations respectively and then was lavishly provided with all the ingredients of growth and development it needed by the event of the 2011 General Elections that brought former president Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to power. It suffices to note that cabalism, clericalism and careerism are the worst diseases that can attack Franciscalism as a leadership model and they have made their entry on the Nigerian landscape. The disabling effects of the 3rd term agenda raised the platforms of clericalism and careerism to the status of a strong and rewarding template of national service but the events and circumstances of the sickness and death of former president Alhaji Musa Yar’dua may have put the invasive approach of Cabalism to flight during Jonathan’s administration. At the end, there seemed to be a generous accommodation and boisterous adoption and confirmation of the diseases of clericalism and careerism by the administration of Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan. The undoing of Goodluck Ebele Jonathan lies in the fact of an absence of an adequate resolve to apply himself to the strangulating need for answers and solution to the problems and questions which his affable democratic personality presented to the issues of ineptitude and clueless leadership as well as to corruption and terrorism. It is palpably regrettable that the resolve and honest commitment of the civil society to put a valuable and lavishly cherished democratic wagon back on track became hijacked at gun point by the ISWAP terrorists in disguise who were used to infiltrate the All Progressive Party (APC). Consequently, Nigeria was sarcastically returned to terrorist enclaves and ruled by the government-by-gun melodrama. Franciscalism is highly differentiated from the theological significance of the office and works of Pope Francis for Catholicism. Invariably, the term is employed here to serve as an effective wall of severance between the extremisms associated with present-day secularist and fundamentalist attitudes respectively even as the notion of a secular state, or democracy, or capitalism, or representative government does not constitute total erasure but rather accommodates, enthrones and celebrates the facticity of divine government. Remarkably, incendiaries in some influential ecclesiastical quarters are undeterred in their attempts to reduce - though in a very discreet way - the whole contents of the pontificate of Francis to a mere ideology devoid of any substantive theological value and being antithetical to doctrines. If this move turns out very successful, then it would be given unto Franciscalism to duplicate the Theology of the Church and to command and shortchange doctrines. Here, an undetected pretentious benevolence takes upon itself the task of creating a schism between the Mystical Body of Christ and the Institutional Church. In this case what remains as Church after Pope Francis would be, more or less, a hyper-active functional religious socialism. Outside ecclesiastical circles, Pope Francis is hugely popular as a figure of almost ostentatious liberation, progress and environmental activist. But Pope Francis is also the Head of the Church, the Bishop of Rome and a reform Pope. A flourishing Christian ideology cannot take the place of the doctrinal life of the Church. This problem is theological, not sociological. My problem with Franciscalism is hinged on the cruel indictments which the Church is bound to suffer when some deceptive global inducements and scandalous involvements by two or three members of the Roman Curia achieve a vandalization of the deposit of faith and a total confiscation of the appurtenances of ecclesiastical government in the disguise of Church reforms. Perhaps, Pope Francis could be speaking directly and unpretentiously to some of the nagging and lingering pastoral problems and questions in a very practical language. But there is no need to and no room must be created that will have the capacity to donate the opportunity these persistent problems and questions crave for - but which they do not deserve - to assume amorphous shapes and forms that shield them from suspicion and in this way guarantee the total destabilization of the Mystical Body of Christ in reference especially to heresy, schism and apostasy. Unfortunately, the pontificate of Francis seems to be overly generous in the donation of this kind of opportunity to the 21st Century Catholicism. I am praying that somebody would have the time and courage to research more on the topic: "The Nature and Character of Global Pontifical Error and Terror in 21st Century Catholicism". This is necessary because the proposals usurpers are using the Pontificate of Francis to present to the human family and the methods they deploy to actualize their vision stand at very close affinity and have been found to be in strong alignment and collaboration with ecclesiastical terrorism and corruption of the original faith. I do not believe that Pope Francis was an usurper of the Papal Throne and I am not also conscripted into the highly volatile and suffocating chambers of fanaticism. But the highly inflammable levers of dirty ecclesiastical politics and the project it propagates and advertises is a morgue affair for the Church and her vibrant faith that does not and cannot appeal to any Christian person, interest or fancy anywhere, anytime. DEALING WITH THE CHALLENGES OF POST-RATZINGER PAPACY. For quite a while I battled with the difficulty of reconciling two Joseph Ratzingers. The first is that most towering theological figure whose works span two event-laden centuries and still counting. The second is the die-hard but straight forward doctrinal chief-enforcer of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and of whom Thomas Reese himself confessed to being a ”holy man” despite the gully that put them miles apart by the fact of their opposing viewpoints. And to know that Fr. Hans Kuhn was a colleague of and a fellow collaborator with Joseph Ratzinger as well as one of the most visible faces during the Second Vatican Council whose works have come under the Ratzinger harmer elicits consternation and, at a second thought, an embarrassment to many on what actually the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger evokes as the spirit of and the truth about the Second Vatican Council. But if, in accord with the Epistle of James Vs. 3 (“Contend for the Faith that was handed over to you by the Fathers”), the Holy Office is real and has a significance for the Faith of Church, especially the kind of Church which alone confers the kind of Christian identity that is, strictly speaking, “Catholic”; and again, if theology has a method – one which commands a universal acceptance and compliance – then the Ratzinger who was, by providence, the die-hard doctrinal enforcer of the Holy Roman Catholic Church does not contradict and need not be confused with the other who today is the greatest theological force in the 21st Century Church. This understanding and reconciliation were an inescapable need which Kuhn consistently neglected to pay attention to in his life-long career as a priest and a theologian in the Catholic tradition. In retrospect, Benedict XVI was the greatest doctrinal force in and the most successful theologian of the 21st Century Church. However, I am strongly being persuaded to believe - and this belief is laced with conviction - that had Joseph Ratzinger not made an early foray into the episcopacy or accepted the burden of doctrinal burden which the Holy Office imposed on him, he would have had spent the whole of his theological career in the Karl Rahner or Bernard Lonergan neighborhoods and would have been content to remain there. An illustration at this point in time may be necessary to throw more light on the highly inflammable atmosphere into which the two powerful and influential but opposing blocks have created in the Churcg presently. In a recent article, Thomas Reese, former editor of the Jesuit progressive Magazine "America" and later, "The National Catholic Reporter" respectively remarked thus: “I forgive Pope Benedict XVI and I hope others would.” In these words, he recaptured and copiously relived - albeit with a certain air of ecclesiastical triumphalism or what I prefer to call "triumphant churchism" (prioritizing and elevating subjective opinions of some churchmen and assume that these have triumphed over those belonging to other people who are considered the opposition. This attitude comes with all the trappings of suspicion, violence, hostility and victimization) - not only his frustrations and personal dissatisfaction with the works of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, former President of the Congregation (now Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) who later became Pope and took the name "Benedict XVI" but also the many predicaments and fatalisms that, in his own perception, tagged the previous pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI respectively. Cardinal Robert Sarah, on his own part, lamented the depreciation of orthodoxy both in theory and in application under the watch of Pope Francis. According to him “the crisis in the Church has reached another stage, crisis of the Magisterium". To what extent does the opinion of Cardinal Robert Sarah reflect the situation of the Church today? How many bishops and theologians would agree with him and to what extent? These questions apply also to Thomas Reese on the opposing side. The situation in the Church presently has become too delicate and challenging both theologically, pastorally and canonically. One is befuddled about the existence of an inquisitorial prong of Church leadership that lurks in and operates from an unmarked corner of the ecclesiastical government inhabited by the so-called conservatives. And from a different and opposing angle, the prevarications that are at the root of the responses that emanated from the Pontificate of Francis do not seem to have any iota of patience and tolerance for what some members of the Papal Household did rather prefer to label "stiff opposition" to an infallible pope. It is regrettable that the Church of the 20th Century chose to have herself, together with many of her powerful institutions, partially divested of her significance for the freedom of Theology and instead donated herself, consciously (or unconsciously?) as a willing instrument at the scandalous altars of inquisition sarcastically erected against the evolution and development of necessary and urgent pastoral action. The fact that Pope Benedict XVI is gone has not solved these problems either. Instead, these questions have become more persistent and threatening with the coming of Pope Francis and the approach he has brought to bear on the 21st Century Catholicism. But could it be said with certainty - even in the most relative sense - that, consequently, the greatest accomplishments of the John Paul II/Benedict XVI pontificates lie in the institution of Cabalism, Clericalism and Careerism and as having yielded mere delusional inconsequentialities and finally became swallowed up by what the cancelled American priest and Moral Theologian Mathew Fox referred to as “ecclesiolatory"? To the extent this is true is also to the extent it is true that Pope Francis was a usurper of the papal throne and that the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council was convoked at the instance of globalists without a hue given to the impending disasters which these hold in store for the Church today or in a future referential framework of heresy, schism and apostasy. This is more serious than the mistakes of the previous pontificates because with them, there was a guilty and an abusive Church. But in the case of the Pontificate of Francis, a functional religious socialism - it must be categorically stated - kills the faith and usurps totally the place of a Church. Even today and in reference to Pope Francis, imperialism, fascism, “ecclesiolatry”, irredentism, bigotry, apostasy, schism, heresy, etc., cannot be employed as tools to explain what the Church seeks to achieve by the event of the definition of the dogma of “Infallibility” and cannot exhaustively describe the ongoing Synod on Synodality. Whether in terms of spirituality or social action, a theologian must learn to relate to the Holy See and to the common patrimony of our faith as one family of Abraham with canonical and orthodox theological lenses. Along this line, some great theological minds do not find it amusing that their commitment to the faith is also, paradoxically, their handicap and their greatest undoing especially in their efforts to confirm and assert that faith. In the scheme of the new inquisition, a Theologian can be prevailed upon and intimidated to retract or become heavily censored but to ask a Bishop to renounce the Faith is another way of handing a death-sentence to an Apostle and an attempt to silence the Apostolic College. The Apostle Peter, when confronted with such a challenge chose to deny the Master - an action he deeply regretted. It seems, for example, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano is resolved to avoid the petrine regrets and has, instead gone out of his way to prove to the world that he belongs to the post-Pentecost Apostolic College. Dealing with the challenges of a post-Benedict XVI papacy today requires that every stakeholder in the faith, especially those from the opposing divides, come to appreciate in a very radical way that all there is to the journey from the physical to mystery, from unbelief to faith, from illusion to reality, from ignorance to knowledge, from sin to sainthood, from the known to the unknown, from sorrow to joy, from sickness to health, from death to life, from earth to heaven - all existent factors thereof or there from - are not exhaustively discernible to ordinary human intelligence, not thoroughly defined by doctrines, not totally reflected by any rule of life, not completely made concrete in any particular epoch, not fully articulated by a particular thought category, not unquestionably built into any particular tradition. And nobody’s subjective experience is exhaustively encompassing of the reality we call the Absolute Mystery. Hence, it is very important to emphasize the differences as well as the interactive sessions between “Economic Trinity” and the “Immanent Trinity”, between what God does “Ad Extra” and what He does “Ad Intra”, between “Permanence” and “Change”, between the “Many” and the “One”, between – to borrow from Karl Rahner - the “Discovered Unknown” and the “Undiscovered Unknown”. All these are highly indispensable elucidating factors in reality’s own evolution. In managing the common patrimony of faith, a quite reverent disposition, not the irredentism or bigotry which many have subscribed to about their subjective opinions regarding the Mystery that challenges us with faith- response, is the only thing worthy of the revelations, vision and mission that drive our zeal for action in the Church. Humanity has come of age and to dangerous crossroads in its journey towards actualization and so novelties must pose no surprises to anybody even though they are more clearly appreciated by progressive minds and hearts than by rigid mentality. Nevertheless, novelties demand official responses – one which must take into account the imposing edifices of rights and obligations in a pluralistic and democratic society. And to refuse to respond, or venture into a response outside the demands or conditions unequivocally outlined by freedom, justice, peace and progress is what it means to appear unarguably unreal and exasperating. Both in the Church or out there in the secular world, humanity must evolve means and ways of “crossing the threshold of hope” (to borrow from Pope John Paul II) in a manner that is devoid of rancor, violence and corruption. All of us, as long as we are in this corporeal side, are mere “seekers” or “masons” hoping to come face to face one day with the “Great Architect” who has given himself in an irrevocable way to us in the person and ministry of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Until we come face to face with the Great Architect – the Lion of the Tribe of Judea, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega (the Jesus of Faith) who alone is God – the Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient God - and no other but him alone, we must resolve to listen to Jesus Christ of Nazareth (the Jesus of History) whose life and works are a “given” in the Scriptures, most especially the gospels. If the historical Jesus is absolutely significant to the point of indispensability and infallibility; and if by virtue of his life and works a tradition was established; and if the Church is the custodian of this tradition, it then does equally imply that the Church is the most authentic custodian, after God, of the Truth about that Absolute Mystery we call God, and that the quality of the Truth which is domiciled in the Church is the highest quality and the most authentic accessible to humankind. THE MAGISTERIUM AFTER POPE FRANCIS. Ex-pontiff Benedict XVI was lavishly generous by his decision to resign his position as Pope in his resolve to chart a new course of action for the 21st Century Church. The expectation of many regarding the Pontificate of Francis hinged greatly on the need to rescue the endangered concept of Theological Freedom and deploy this as a galvanized and effective tool for the evolution of the faith of the 21st Century Catholicism and as a practical guide to the reform of the Roman Curia, Pastoral Ministry and Ecclesiastical Life in general. There is every indication, however, that the generosity of ex-pontiff Benedict XVI has remained hugely unappreciated but rather has been transformed into a tool of mockery, ostracization and total reversal for everything he (Benedict XVI) authoritatively represents, courageously professes and effectively propagates. In all honesty, the elasticity of the present challenges in reference especially to the Synod on Synodality do not leave anyone in doubt that Pope Francis’s engagements with reforms instinctively prescribed acutely radical departure from orthodoxy and that these have a definitively proven agenda. Here exactly - and not elsewhere - for example, an experiment in habitual disobedience to the authority of a Pope or proverbially revamped conservatist discontentment - lies the crux of the matter with Orthodoxy agitators in the ranks of the "Dubia Cardinals", Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Bishop Athanasius Schneider (Auxiliary Bishop of Astana in Kazakhstan) and so many other faithful members of the clergy and laity whose repeatedly filial appeals of love to the Pope Francis were made to transform into a dirge by some of his foot soldiers who had, all of a sudden, found their ears hurt when the truth was being spoken and, as a result, they became very incapable of listening. This is the most real threat to the Synod on Synodality and the real monster Pope Francis needed to fight against if the Synod was, from the onset, designed to hold any tangible promise for the Church and for the world. The tragedy of the handlers of the pontificate of Francis’ is that a project that is densely Theological was totally emptied of its contents and reduced to a mere ideology. But can a mere functional religious socialism (or what I have chosen to refer to as Franciscalism) that is devoid of every spiritual contents exhaust the concept of "Church"? If those, including theologians, who were aggrieved and deeply wounded by the actions and inactions of Church authorities during the past pontificates of Benedict XVI and John Paul II are real and sincere in their commitment to the faith and in their search for answers and solutions to the reform questions and problems that these past years raised for the faith and for Church life, then the many great subversions, cancellations and manipulations the pontificate of Francis tried very hard to foist on the Church and force down the throat of a good number of the population of Catholic faithful would surely compel Pope Leo XIV to float alternatives. Or that, at least, a standard method of evaluation for both Theology and Pastoral Ministry be developed and made to function as a matrix of action for both conservatives and progressives alike. The human family of the 21st Century is trapped under highly penumbraic, intricately interwoven and volatile atmospheres which have created serious tensions between faith and praxis; between objective reality and a subjective one; and between substance and accidents. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a powerful discovery of this highly inflammable tension. But in his dealings with theologians, Ratzinger segregated between orthodox theologians and dissident ones. He was correct and proactively justifiable if only he had also made commensurate efforts to identify the real nature and character of cabalism, clericalism and careerism which, most often – more than the concern for orthodoxy and the interests of the Church - were the real factors at work in the many censorships the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued against theologians. Notably, however, Pope Benedict XVI did not only come to excavate, study and appreciate the roots and significance of the power and influence which the tripartite evils of cabalism, clericalism and careerism wield in the ecclesiastical circles both in the Universal and Local Churches, he also resolutely and single handedly deployed the whole resources of the Church, including the rare type that is associated with the resignation of a pope, to fight the hydra headed dragon (for this is exactly what cabalism, clericalism and careerism signify for the 21st Century Church) that invaded the Church in disguise. The rare historic pontifical innovation accomplished by ex-Pontif Benedict XVI and his very close collaborators at a very great personal cost must be allowed to assume its most proper place in the hallowed chambers of the government of the Holy See and must not be given over and donated to pacify or serve some reprobate agitations of the New Humanism. Today, many argue that the possibility of the existence of such unholy and extravagant charity were so evident in the doctrinal language and pontifical behavior of Pope Francis and this has proved to be overtly overbearing, covertly narcissistic and doctrinally disturbing. More so, I am compelled to observe that the Message of the Blessed Virgin Mary to the three shepherding children of Fatima, a sleepy town located in Northern Lisbon, 18 miles (29km) South East of the city of Leiria, Portugal in 1917 did not originally present any special fascination for me. But as I began to appreciate and live under the Rahnerian advocacy given the influence of his works, the correlation between the Theology of Liberation and the Prophetic burden of the Church began to impress itself on my theological consciousness. In an article "Christian Living Formerly and Today" (one of the many topics treated in his 24 volume book, “Theological Investigations”), Karl Rahner forcefully asserted that “the devout Christian of the future will either be a “mystic” – someone who has “experienced something” – or he will cease to be anything at all”. I am convinced that Prophecy and Revelation are valid and legitimate vehicles for the propagation of truth. But the propagation of truth in contemporary human society requires a method. Innocent Asouzu has pointed out the fatalisms associated with hiding behind cultural generalizations to foster ideological tussles. But this does not mean that a person should not be proud of his cultural heritage no matter how deficient. To appreciate one’s cultural heritage is a precondition for authentic dialogue of a cultural reconstructive type. A person who is not proud of his indigenous cultural heritage, or who tries to hide aspects of this, is definitely not worthy of it and can become an impediment to any fruitful dialogue of an intellectual healing type. In all cases, there is need for people who participate in intercultural discourse to refine their language, research methods and models of presenting them, and to rid them of all manners of little mindedness and trivialities. This does not mean in any way that we should compromise scientific objectivity, which ought to be approached with prudence. Asouzu avers thus: There is need to approach reality in a complementary mood in view of grasping the human person in the complexity of his constitutions, and truth in the comprehensiveness of its expression. Admittedly, a certain level of articulation is needed to accomplish this task, but this can hardly be reduced to a preconceived linguistic pattern and retain credibility. It is in view of this comprehensiveness that I doubt if decolonizing ecclesiastical conceptual schemes as Cardinal German and the Jesuit establishment in America) are suggesting is the best way to enrich them. Likewise, I seriously doubt if we will give clearer account of our world by undue recourse to neologisms that suggest barrenness of our own indigenous conceptual schemes. What is needed in most cases is how to strike a balance between one’s indigenous language and other ways of expressing meaning. Hence, the question would always remain how to mediate between the abstract and the concrete, the usual and the unusual such that what is intended does not get lost completely. Those concepts help us grasp reality in harmonious complementary manner, which have the capacity to bridge the divide between extreme forms of abstractness and symbolism. To such concepts belongs the idea of ibuanyidanda (complementarity), which in its symbolism remains intuitively committed and contemplatively concrete and refreshing. These are such concepts whose empirical expressions and analytic connotation are harmonized to present reality in a way easily accessible to a mind that is human. Where a theory is only interested in differences, and displays moments of self-contradictory type of narcissistic subjectivism, it can hardly be said to be useful for any type of intercultural encounter. For intercultural encounter to take place, the mind that speaks must always be harmonized with the mind that remains silent*2. How can all the peoples, nations, Institutions and situations be addressed by the One, Holy , Apostolic and Catholic Church and still recognize in it the same True Faith - without being beguiled or overridden by heresy, schism and apostasy - after they all have heard her clearly and made their most adequate but diverse responses in the age of the New Humanism? This question is inescapable and must be seen to be foundational to Pope Leo XIV's vision about a New Way of Being Church in today's world. The complexity, ambiguity, violence, confusion and mutual suspicion which these two diametrically opposed blocs present to the Mystical Body of Christ are, both in theory and in practice, too scandalous and suffocating for the Faith. Undeniably, there exists - hidden away in-between the contending blocs - a conscious invitation to schism between the Mystical Body of Christ and Institutional Church. In this way, the Church has already been placed on the path to heresy, schism and apostasy. The Synod on Synodality has the capacity to escalate this dichotomy or ameliorate the situation. And to assume that the fear is illusory or non-existent is one way of getting the faith to suffer some kind of irremediable paralysis. Supposing but not conceding that this has become the case, given the opposing views between the progressives and the conservatists, what then – if one may ask - is the fate of the Magisterium after Pope Francis especially in a future framework of Infallibility, Contextualization, Freedom of Theology and Pastoral application in a 21st Century Church that is completely immersed into a hyper techno-scientific world with diverse cultural backgrounds and whose membership is made up of people with complex and, sometimes, conflicting experiences and then equipped with a fresh knowledge or understanding about freedom and rights? Surely, a Synodal Church is not merely a Bergoglio’s Church and cannot, therefore, be considered as an aberrant reductionism”. It is one necessary way of being Church today. Which other methods, means and ways exist by which the Christian faith can be made more intelligible and practical an experience by the present pontificate without exposing the Church and the deposit of faith to heresy, schism and apostasy? This concern predates Pope Francis but many of its diverse forms (e.g., the Gallen Club) and coarse features (e.g., “Amoris Laeticia”, FIDUCIA Suppicans, etc) congregate around the pontificate of Francis and are not pretentious in their determination to find a sure anchorage there. Writing on the events that took place on the fateful day former U.S President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in an article titled “Fears, Tears and Silence: the Day JFK Died” (published in the Nov. 22, 2013 edition of the National Catholic Reporter), Patricia Lefeveres said: “Quade plucked two pieces of new chalk from a box and with a heavy hand pounded an arc across the blackboard. At each end of the crescent, he painted an "X" in white chalk. At the top, he layered a cross in yellow chalk. Pointing to the two X's, which he labeled the ultra right and ultra left of the political realm, he told us: "It is the job of the president to harmonize the elements of the far right and the far left." Next Quade pointed to the cross at the top of the arc, telling us that it represented the president. “When the president cannot harmonize these disparate elements, the nation is in peril." Suddenly a knock interrupted Quade. "He's gone," the voice of another instructor informed us all. The door closed. A blond male student seated behind my desk rose and announced that he was from Houston and that this was "the greatest day in American history." ----------------------- NEW PARADYMS OF DOCTRINAL RECONSTRUCTIONS. I have followed closely the developmental stages of leadership both in the Church and in the global family in the past decades especially in its political configurations and as effective tool of propagation of faith in the Institutional Church using Nigeria as contact point. It is quite evident that in theory and in practice, responsible citizenship and authenticity in the practice of the faith of the different religions - notably, Christianity, Islam and African Traditional Religion, and if possible, atheism – are inescapable conditions for peace, growth, development and progress for all nations, including Nigeria. These imperatives also have the requisite capacity to trace the basic outlines of global peace and security and, at the same time, show the path to environmental safety, a healthy universe and a renewed humanity. Some traditions and customs, decisions or actions - including issues and events - wrongly perceived or considered as absolute and unchanging values and settled questions are effortlessly and, by no external compulsion, naturally annulled and voided irremediably at source and then collapse on the power of dubious capitalizations, falsehoods and criminal alliances which persistently refuse to lend themselves to scrutiny or transparency tests thereby hiding serious pathologies from being treated, not even dictated. The celibate priesthood, in its connection to the abrasive notions of service, relevance, power and hierarchical government have suffered such mishaps. The eternal and unchanging nature and character that created it into a sublime article of the faith is intact but the doctrinal site from where it took its roots appears messy and scandalous - no thanks to monumental deceptions of a clerical nature and the violence that served as its sustaining factor. Former Cardinal Theodore McGartrrick is a case study here. The contradictions and significance of such issues and events of clerical deception which were initially confused with the vow of obedience and mistaken to be at the service of orthodoxy and doctrines are in no way lost to the powers and forces that form and give shape to the religious experience and consciousness of the 21st century Christian. They are well documented and have served as catalysts while, at the same time, donating the crucibles of evaluation for the practice of the faith. The task of recovery, reorganization and re-capitalization of desecrated and vandalized faith vaults - with all its implications for praxis, for functionality, for credulity and for acceptance – is a herculean one for a pope that is, at once, frail and human and living in a hyper-active techno-scientific world that is short of being a branded product of global conspirators even as the power of the reality of divine proximity is the most affable and dominant factor of the created order. While the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is still the spotless bride of Christ and thus remains secure and infallible in the hands of Peter, the Institutional Church today is, to some extent, a reflection of what cabalism, clericalism and careerism that invaded and dictated to ecclesiastical government in the last century made it. The hostility and insults that pretend to serve the vehicles of truth and orthodoxy seem to have won comfortable accommodation behind the thick and opaque Vatican blinds - courtesy of the conspirators - and have transformed into fossils of indifference from and outright dismissal of urgent questions by the pontificate of Pope Francis about doctrines and the explanations that must, as a matter of necessity, follow some of the positions adopted by the handlers of this pontificate; and the body-language of Pope Francis has also aided some factors to become stubborn and to remain exactly this way. And there is no way continued silence, indifference or outright dismissal can suffice, like in the past pontificates. The theological attention they evoke cannot admit of superficiality or mere rhetoric. The vast applications that have been invested on their behalf - investments that arrogantly and violently vandalize the appurtenances of ecclesiastical government and seek to desecrate the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ and insult God - must become targets for questioning and possible extinction - such issues as deep state, deep church, sodomy, etc. Church leaders, including Pope Leo XIV on the other hand and the bishops of the local Churches on the other hand, must be made to accept the fact that continuity is a process of growth or development which admits only of facts that are well linked-up or connected in their inner self even though there may be a disproportion in shapes and sizes. And that when higher facts emerge and present themselves as the missing link (what Innocent Asouzu has identified in general terms as the "missing links of reality") in the process, and actually prove to be so because of their sublime character, change or transition becomes inevitable. Change is a necessary moment in the project of continuity. The reason for transition is found in its ability to build-up the force of reality and sustain the original impulse. Change, therefore, is not an isolated necessary moment in the programme of continuity. It is its character, its nature. The driving force of continuity is not in the irrational prolongation of the human actors or in the allegiance to old methods and formulas, but in the continuous discovery anew and the evolution of the force of unity and the originality of purpose which is hidden behind a broad spectrum of facts. Unity and functionality, not the actors and their methods, are the discerning factors of authenticity in the process of development. When unity ignores functionality, what takes place is the birth of a kind of monstrous dwarfism of the entire process of development. A good example of this is found in a system or a tradition which does not encourage growth and innovations but rests only on the impulse of its actors and their outdated methods. Church leaders and others must allow themselves to be confronted and educated by this proven fact of existence especially as this affects tradition, orthodoxy and hierarchy. On the other hand, it is also important to observe that when functionality ignores the stubborn fact of unity, there is an infection of the entire process of development with a cancerous growth that lacks meaning and purpose. In the final analysis, it is discovered that what seemed like a rapid development is only but a balloon filled with the suffocating air of illusion which stands the danger of perforation when the system is forced under severe tension. At this point, there is a total collapse not only of meaning and purpose but also of the actors and their methods. A good example is the process of creation of wealth which occurred in Nigeria during the Babangida regime but which has brought this nation to a total collapse even as everything about Nigeria lacks meaning and purpose and is instead placed under the corrosive influence of corruption and terrorism and threatened heavily with total disintegration into unproductive ethnic lumps of different sizes and shape. Can Africa withstand such shame after the experience of Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia, etc. This is also the underlying factor of the fears about the conclusions of the Reforms initiated by Pope Francis. The rapid progress which a society enjoys owing to advancements in science and technology or as a project of Revolution or Reforms without a correlation in other areas of life is equally faced with a danger of total collapse at the end of the day. Here, there is always a hurried change of actors and methods depending on their capacity for function without a corresponding consideration of their capacity for unity. The undercurrent of such dichotomy between unity and functionality has been pinned down to interest which will always refuse, for obvious reasons (e.g., fear of illumination and opposition), to submit itself to a critical evaluation, but on the contrary, elevate itself to a value and, sometimes, usurp the position of absolute value. In this quest, every occasion or moment stands the danger of manipulation, or demands that the creative impulse be put at the disposal of selfishness. Selfishness is always unrelenting in its effort to ensure the dichotomy between unity and functionality and at the same time delights in the project of manipulation and the subversion and diversion of the creative impulse. The problem being raised is not the obvious demand of self-preservation but the power of interest and the superficiality of unevaluated allegiance in reference, especially, to the real reasons behind Pope Francis' Reforms and the actual identity of its real beneficiaries. Generally speaking, a possible coup d’état against the Son of God is a greater tragedy that is knocking the Pyramid of Faith hard on the edge. Real Churchmen and women must begin to lead the counter-efforts the Church is making to curb some cowardly agitations. Taking up this worthy cause in freedom does not detract from but rather underscores the urgency of the need to vehemently address the issues of the clergy sex-abuse of minors, clericalism, corruption and terrorism. Where do we go from here? Or, put differently, is a new Nicaea possible? Does a new way of being Church presuppose some doctrinal reconstructions - after all, tradition is open to fecundity, growth and development? In addressing this question, one must not lose sight of the fact that the seed of growth and progress evolves, not from the abortificients that are introduced into it by rival cultures, but by a disposition of faithful industry exercised within the limits legitimately provided. Somebody must take responsibility for the faith. This faith is what is spelt out in the Scriptures, in Tradition, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Code of Canon Law. This is our Creed, Code and Conduct. Here, two factors must necessarily be made to draw and govern our attention. Collin E. Gunton explores and expounds these factors. The first is recognition of the fact that while theology may operate within the garden marked out by dogma, its activities may come to change both the territory and the character of the garden. This raises the question of authority. What is the authority of the Theologian within the Church? How far can and should Theological activity alter the boundaries of the garden, as it undoubtedly has done and does? And the second is the biblical and eschatological proviso attendant on all dogmatic activity, whether engaged in by Church bodies or particular theologians that all theological activity is subject to the test of Scripture and the judgement of the age to come. Here is raised the question not of the authority of Church and theology, but of the status of them both. What truth is claimable this side of eternity by fallible and sinful human beings, if they all are fallible, as some but not all Churches believe? In both of these respects we are concerned with pneumatology, with what we believe the eschatological Spirit enables within the constraints of time and history, and how his gifts are distributed. Whatever else is decided, is surely to be agreed that if there is to be a place for dogma in the Church its functions are at once both to delimit and to realize Theology’s freedom. The freedom is the freedom of Theologians to respond to Holy Spirit’s inspiration in seeking to feed the church and engage the world. If the boundaries are too re-strictive, the expression of the truth for today will be impeded; if too vague or absent altogether, other Masters than the gospel will rule, and the garden will become a desert. The historical and Theological difficulties which face us are exacerbated by the differences between the Churches in their understanding of dogma… ( Gunton C.E; Dogma, The Church and Task of Theology in “The Task of Theology Today” (p2 – 3). (TO BE CONTINUED)