There’s clearly an attempt here to restore clarity without formally undoing what created the confusion in the first place. That tension is hard to miss.
If the teaching is truly “unchanged,” but its practical expression can move in opposite directions depending on who speaks or how it’s framed, it raises a quieter question: what actually establishes continuity—statements, documents, or the authority behind them?
At some point, the issue isn’t just what is said, but what binds.
There’s clearly an attempt here to restore clarity without formally undoing what created the confusion in the first place. That tension is hard to miss.
If the teaching is truly “unchanged,” but its practical expression can move in opposite directions depending on who speaks or how it’s framed, it raises a quieter question: what actually establishes continuity—statements, documents, or the authority behind them?
At some point, the issue isn’t just what is said, but what binds.
If he did then he should be excommunicating James Martin SJ by the end of the weekend
Ambiguity all the way down. He repudiated nothing of Francis. How much longer will you pretend he isn't Francis II?