From John Allen at Crux:
Despite an online petition calling on prelates “faithful to Christ’s teaching” to abandon the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family, due to perceptions of a “pre-determined outcome that is anything but orthodox,” one of the summit’s most outspoken conservatives says “there’s no ground for anyone to walk out on anything.”
Australian Cardinal George Pell, who heads the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Economy, told Crux on Friday that by the midway point of the Oct. 4-25 synod, concerns about stacking the deck circulating in some quarters have “substantially been addressed.”
The online petition calling for a walkout, which can be found at change.org, has garnered roughly 2,300 signatures in two days.
It asks any bishop alarmed by the prospect of progressive changes to Church doctrine to “do his sacred duty and publicly retire from any further participation in the synod before its conclusion,” and suggests that Pope Francis is responsible for promoting “confusion and scandal.”
Pell was among roughly a dozen cardinals who signed a letter to Francis at the beginning of the synod raising doubts about the process, but he says reassurances have been given by Vatican officials that the final result “will faithfully present the views of the synod.”
Among other things, Pell said that Italian Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the synod secretary, has stated from the floor of the synod hall that voting on a final document will take place “paragraph by paragraph,” providing a clear sense of where the bishops stand on individual issues.
He also said that members of a drafting committee for the final document have vowed to be true to the content of the synod’s discussions, rather than using the text to promote their own views.
“That’s all we want, for whatever the synod says, whether it’s good, bad, or indifferent, to be represented,” Pell said.
“That’s in the long-term interest of everyone, because no matter how it might turn out, people want to feel that the bishops got to that situation fairly,” he said.
Asked if he feels the synod now has a level playing field, Pell said it’s “level enough.”
A couple quick thoughts:
It’s fantastic to have acknowledgement that this is being considered by the cardinals at the Synod so soon after launch and with only 2300 signatures. The Filial Appeal to Pope Francis went on for most of a year and gathered the better part of a million signatures, and went unacknowledged. While it has always been a fairly low probability that we would actually see what we want — bishops walking out of a rigged Synod in protest — it is of vital importance that they are made aware how concerned the faithful are, and the extent to which we are watching, hoping, praying, and desirous of courageous action.
In other words: if any of the Synod fathers are having a conversation about the existence of our letter, it’s a win. We support those who are there to uphold Church teaching, and we want them to know it.
The fact that Cardinal Pell says that “there’s no ground for anyone to walk out on anything” is perhaps a hopeful sign that things within the Synod are going better than we had hoped, but it’s not sufficient reason to end our campaign. It has always been our intention that the Synod fathers fight for this as long as they still see hope; some of us think the very fact that fundamental doctrines are being discussed as though they are subject to change is sufficient reason not to participate, while others want a drop-down, drag-out brawl until the very last day.
At some point, though, if there is sufficient cause to believe that they are facing a fait accompli, the faithful bishops should leave in protest – and head straight to the media with their side of the story.
I’d like to say it’s nice to hear assurances that things are looking good for Team Jesus, but I must admit that I find myself deeply skeptical. The bishops who represent the greatest danger to Church teaching on marriage and family are those personally invited by Pope Francis, and Pope Francis has the final say on the Synod outcome. And we’re already seeing some of these men emboldened in their reckless desire to offer the Eucharist to those who would receive it sacrilegiously, thus eating and drinking condemnation unto themselves. (1 Cor. 11:27-30)
Are we to believe that the Synod has discouraged them in such pursuits?
So rest assured, the petition goes on. If you haven’t signed it, please consider doing so today.
The following tweet from Edward Pentin, posted a few minutes ago, makes me doubtful that we’ve heard the last of this:
“#Synod father speaking anonymously: “Sacrament of marriage under attack, it’s like running on razors. Synod being run chaotically.”
https://twitter.com/EdwardPentin/status/655161192353300480
Either the pope is in cahoots with the rebels, or he has no control at all of the Synod; either way, it does not speak well of him as the Vicar of Christ. From everything I’ve read, the first possibility seems to be the strongest, and that REALLY does not speak well of him. Notice that Pentin’s “Synod father” feels he must speak anonymously. One doesn’t do that unless he’s afraid of something. Doesn’t sound much like the “kinder, merciful, caring and sharing” kind of Vatican we’ve heard about since Pope Francis arrived, does it?
The very fact that Cardinal Pell acknowledged the fact that the petition exists is the real news. We must not back down through pressure or fatigue or frustration. Keep on truckin’.
We are fighting even harder on the other side. We will not let you drag the Church back to 1580. Change is coming! Pray for Francis!
wat??
Who said anything about dragging back? (Psst, you let your mask slip! If you have a problem with Trent, you have a problem with being-Catholic, aka, decadent Protestantism.) Catholics are all about *holding fast*, not dragging back–or, at least, only dragging back to Christ day by day, canon by canon, Mass by Mass. So, when you´re actually interested in converting, the Church is here for you, and we´re waiting with open arms.
“Oh please. What arrogance to believe that you are influencing anything What hateful people. I hope Francis prays for you so that you may learn love.”
Right back atcha!
Heretics may be wrong, but they have always fought “harder on the other side.”
Absolutley. Conservative Catholics are too meek, too fatalistic, too passive to fight the Liberals effectively. Let’s face it conservative Cardinals are too fainthearted to really confront this destructive Pope and to resist him.
The letter of the thirteen Cardinals to the Pope is nothing but a halfhearted revolt of the pygmies and saying piep, piep to an autocratic and ruthless Pope. Some of the listed Cardinals even deny that they had sign the letter. The point is conservative Cardinals can’t always merlely “express” their concerns while the Liberals with the Pope on their side act and work their butts off to get the Catholic Church liberalized and maimed. Since 50 years traditional and conservative Catholics sworn into a blind Papolatrie and blind loyalty to the Pope: Now we got a Pope that despises Church traditions and traditional Catholics and yet many conservative Catholics prefer to be in denial than to face reality concerning Francis. They pretend as if the Pope doesn’t say what he means or doesn’t mean what he says.
Are you drunk?
On the side of satan. May you repent and convert.
The Church is in grave danger due to the synod and Pope Francis’ apparent support of all-deviances sexual.
But throwing your purses and walking away is not the answer! Vox, Skojec, et. al. are acting like a bunch of sissies, and yes, of course a rugby guy like Cardinal Pell would not walk away from threatening situations!
And no, he doesn’t own a purse, either!
You all are an embarrassment to Catholicism, and stop acting as if you speak for those who hold true to orthodox Catholicism. Purse-throwing-crybaby Catholics have no place in the Church, either.
“This little bishop went wah, wah, wah, all the way home from the Synod” is not how you should want to be remembered.
Walking from the synod, O Mr Accommodation, is a sign in two important ways. One, it says, “We as bishops will not be manipulated, ever.” Two, it is in harmony with sacred writ, and the Spirit which wrote Scripture, who said, “Come out from among them and be ye separate and I will bless thee,” “Come out from her my people and be not partaker of her sins, nor her plagues.” “Refuse to associate with a brother, ye even to eat with such a one who walketh in such, after the second admonition.” So the effort is godly. And by the way, got a better one than to allow continued manipulation? The action says, ‘the game is afoot and we are on to you!’
Anybody ever tell you that you don’t write very well?
Liberate yourself from your imprisonment in modern categories of thought, my friend. Schoolyard taunts do not exactly enhance your credibility.
As Steve wrote, there is ample precedent within the Church of bishops refusing to associate with heretics or to cooperate with a process predetermined to an erroneous or imprudent result. You should deal with those arguments rather than flinging mud.
Also, Australian Rules football is not rugby.
You actually address other Catholics that way without embarrassment?
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
You either haven’t read Steve and Hilary’s posts clearly articulating the solid foundation for this petition, or you’re dumber than a box of rocks.(aka progressive).
Internet tough guy alert!!!
More like wimp alert. Sounds like a “dialogue dufus”
Does anybody know how Cardinal Pell’s former diocese in Australia actually stacked up as far as Communion to divorced and
remarried, and those living the homosexual lifestyle without repentance? Did Voris do any research on this?
http://www.lanternproject.org.uk/library/abuse-and-the-churches/abuse-and-the-roman-catholic-church/gays-criticise-new-australian-cardinal/
This article is 12 years old ..I was looking for more updated information.
I believe Cardinal Pell is sincere in his belief that the playing field has been leveled but I don’t believe that is the case for one second. Satan is undoubtedly behind some of the synod fathers and he won’t give up that easily. Nor do I believe the followers of satan who say they will be honest in drafting their report in the synod. Plus, at the end of the day, I am absolutely certain Pope Francis will allow for bishop conferences to decide on the kasper proposal, which is exactly what the enemy wants.
The outcome will be, at best, a compromise; there’s no other way. Pope Francis will not reaffirm orthodoxy, and the deck, whether you like to believe it or not, is certainly stacked in favour of a “new” approach, whatever that is. Our Catholic schools (speaking from Australia) are still teaching, for the most part, core Catholic beliefs. However, do not be fooled! What they add to our beliefs is that we understand them in a “new” (re-contextualised) way now. Then they mentioned how Vatican II showed us the way and how the mean old Church has become an all-new kind and happy Church. So, adultery will be, after this Sin-nod, still adultery but understood in a “new” way and of course homosexuality will still be so but understood as a “gift” the Church was blind to see. Believe me people, the outside of the cup will remain clean, but the inside will be full of rapine and uncleanliness. Lord have mercy on us.
“Australian Cardinal George Pell,…, told Crux on Friday that … concerns about stacking the deck circulating in some quarters have “substantially been addressed.”
I believe Cardinal Pell to be a very good man, but I wonder if he is being too trusting. I wouldn’t trust the likes of Baldisseri to clean my car let alone trust their assurances about the conduct of the synod.
The problem is that they can give whatever assurances they wish to obtain co-operation with the process, but once the bishops have all gone home, the rats are free to do whatever they want. Just consider how Kasper tried to throw Ed Pentin under a bus. Lying comes as second nature to infidels.
Lying comes as second nature as well to perverts and usurers.
Michael Hichborn asks (at Lepanto Inst) a question I wish I had thought of; it’s one of those “gotcha” questions that stops stupid propositions (like many being bandied about at the Synod) dead in their proverbial tracks. Here it is: “Synod Fathers Discuss Homosexuality. What about Necrophilia and Bestiality?” So, wise Synod fathers, what about those Catholics who find themselves attracted to sheep and canines? Shouldn’t you be talking, at least a little, about this faunasexual community? And, while we’re at it, what about pedophiles? If you hurry you still may be able to fly a few NAMBLA spokesmen to Rome to discuss with Synod attendees the positive aspects of their…preferences. Accompanying Catholics in these….ah….communities as they progress toward living a full Christian life should prove to be a fascinating exercise in mercy. I’m sure Cardinal Marx has some thoughts about the matter.
I realize you are writing this with tongue in cheek but remember that sodomy at one time was listed in the DSM-IV as a mental illness. The work is now well underway to reduce pedophilia (and later bestiality) to a ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘preferences’ and later, of course, to tie it to ‘human rights’. Their latest manual DSM-V included a ‘mistake’ which they retracted, in a non-committal way, by defining pedophilia as a paraphilic disorder because it involves ‘harm’ to another person, or involves one who is ‘unwilling’ or who ‘cannot give consent.’ Well, I hope we all realize that LEGALLY speaking, what constitutes ‘harm’, and who has deemed to have given their ‘consent’ and, at what age consent can be given, CAN ALL BE CHANGED. After all, according to the talmudists, to have intercourse with a child who has not yet reached the age of three years, is like poking that child in the eye; it’s of no consequence.
See the Washington Times, Oct. 31, 2013 apa correct manual clarification pedophilia is not a ‘sexual orientation’
Also, search engine the words: lowering the age of consent.
One of the many things wrong with the age we live in is that sarcasm becomes more difficult by the moment. You poke fun at a bloke, implying he’s a Red because he calls himself Marx, only to discover it’s not funny, that in fact he was an officer in the Stasi. Thanks for the heads-up concerning pedophilia; I wouldn’t want to give Cdl. Kasper any ideas for a follow-up book to Mercy.
Just to join this little conversation, as a matter of fact, I read credible evidence that for several years now, the Psychiatric Medical Association has been bantering around the idea of pedophilia as being a ‘normal sexual orientation’ when they meet for their annual Conventions. Just a little tid bit of info.
These various collections of shrinks and psychologists would seem to be barometers forecasting the direction to the next level of degradation of modern society.
The regulation of “medicine” and what is and is not medicine is controlled by the NWO government.
I think the “slippery slope” is beginning to fall rapidly.
All nice until you read Marx’s declaration from Wednesday, as if they are certain it will be approved: (The Church) should seriously consider the possibility — based on each individual case and not in a generalizing way — to admit civilly divorced and remarried believers to the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion when the shared life in the canonically valid marriage definitively has failed and the marriage cannot be annulled, the liabilities from this marriage have been resolved, the fault for breaking up the marital lifebond was regretted and the sincere will exists to live the second civil marriage in faith and to educate children in the Faith.
Marx would make a fine Anglican prelate. Right girth and all.
He sounds and acts like a Lutheran right now!
Almost. I believe Luther believed in the Real Presence.
So, sacrilege and sodomy will be voted in a catholic Synod of bishops, and Cardinal Pell is happy because the voting process is guaranteed.
Great.
And is one of the so call “conservatives”.
“Cardinal Pell is happy because the voting process is guaranteed”
3 Ways this Statement is Shocking!
This is a rather shocking statement….first because it is hard to believe that there are any guarantees regarding the process, and secondly that Cardinal Pell seems to have more concern for process, or how the game is played that for who wins; the heretics or the authentic Catholic Church Leadership. Thirdly, this statement is shocking because people are taking it as a reliable assessment that there is nothing to worry about at the synod because Cardinal Pell, chosen by the Pope as a close insider is supposedly “re-assuring ” us.
I think it has been spelled out pretty clearly that the Pope himself is a problem, and perhaps the most serious problem that the Synod has.
Oh please. What arrogance to believe that you are influencing anything What hateful people. I hope Francis prays for you so that you may learn love.
For those who forgot their Modernist decoder rings, what trollDeej said is, “herd derp herp derpa derpaderpa herp. Merp!”
I thought there was a strong odor of troll in the air. Thanks for confirming.
Because it was addressed, it just did influence. I think you missed that.
Let’s accompany one another in dialogue, Deej.
I’ll start with the following questions: What do you regard as the desirable outcome of the synod? Why do you favor this outcome? What, to your mind, is so fearful about the Church’s perennial teaching that it would be a grave mistake to return to it?
You seem to have strong opinions, but have thus far refrained from fleshing them out with any actual content. This is your chance to convert us to your way of thinking. Please proceed.
You mock Christ and true love. Love is an objective truth based on objective moral truths. Good and evil do not change. Love for God and man demands hate for evil and the enemies of God and truth.
Until a heterodox and decisively unambiguous conclusion to this fiasco of a synod is printed, and heresy and heretics are forthrightly dealt with in a final manner, there is every reason to remain skeptical because…VII.
I was thinking about Fr. Ray Blake’s post entitled “The Synod of Madness” very early this morning. I posted the following comment there, and posting it here as well, since I agree with Mr. Skojec. We need to continue to encourage the orthodox participants to walk out. If they stay they must not approve any text that is not clear: allow NO ambuiguity of language that will allow heterodox prelates in the future. to interpret according to their relativistic mindset
Here is my comment to Fr. Blake’s post reproduced:
“Father, is not Archbishop Cupich guilty of a serious/grave sin in making his proposal? I mean, isn’t heresy a grave sin? If so, should he be celebrating Mass, which I assume he does daily?
Here is why I am asking: The Church has always taught that if one is in grave sin, then one should refrain from taking Holy Communion. I would assume also, that a priest in grave sin should refrain from saying Mass and consecrating the Eucharist until he goes to confession and makes a firm resolution to amend his ways.
So, if the ‘heretical’ proposals that are being presented, constitute grave sin, then why are these prelates at the Synod who advocate them,celebrating Mass, and why are the other orthodox prelates allowing them to do so? Are these latter not colluding in the grave sin by allowing a sacriledge of the Mass to take place? I am using as a comparison, the sin of abortion, where the person who aborts, and all the others who collude in the abortion are automatically excommunicated. At least that’s the way I understand it.
Umm, it’s very, very early morning where I live, and these thoughts come up as I try to get my head around the things that are being proposed by these ‘worthy’ prelates, and trying to square them with the faith in Our Lord that I cherish.
_——————————————————————————————————–
Back to 1Peter 5: If the above is true, {…and if it is not, could someone tell me why?} should we not continue to petition our orthodox clergy to walkout, to save their souls at the very least?
Forget petitions. Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.
The petition clearly highlights the evil by the response – and the fact must be recorded in the true record.
While a synod cannot change doctrine, it can affect the climate of opinion among the laity and create talking points for a papal document that attempts to change doctrine. Granted, in the long run doctrine cannot be changed, but a Pope can *try* to change it. Then the question is: what to do while the mess shakes out? (A lot of people appear to reassure themselves that doctrine cannot be changed; true, but this doesn’t stop a Pope from trying!)
The big question is on the minds of many Catholics faithful to the magisterium: what to do in the interim, if (on one scenario) the USCCB or other national bodies implement a wayward decree by the Pope?
For example, a decree that reflects the historically relativizing influence of the German school, which has obviously deeply influenced the American Kasperite, Cupich. Actually, the problem is already here: one can only imagine what goes on behind the scenes under Cupich’s watch in Chicago, by way of heterodox practices. (Not to mention Germany!) One can also imagine the alienation and cold-shouldering that faithful priests in Chicago must be experiencing.
Such a papal decree would not be valid, but it poses huge pastoral questions for faithful bishops, priests and laity. There is very little discussion about this issue, probably because it has not seemed plausible up to this point for the current generation.
But, given that Cupich made the statements he did , and given that he was invited to the synod, and was appointed by the Pope to begin with, suggests that Cupich was fully confident of support from the Pope.
This could all get even more ugly in the coming weeks. Until yesterday, I held out in remaining skeptical of any account of what the Pope was going to say. (It’s like trying to predict the stock market.) But now, I’m pretty convinced again that Cupich was emboldened by expressions of support by the Pope.
Cupich’s highly corrosive concept of conscience — an offense against the unity of the Churchy and downright heterodox — is straightforwardly subjectivist and has nothing to do with the received understanding of conscience in the Catholic tradition. One wonders if he has even ever studied the issue, which cuts across all moral doctrines.
There are historical antecedents worth examining: e.g.,given that there were three claimants to the papacy at one point in history, what advice and guidance were given to the confused laity who thought the Church no longer was in unity?
These are the types of questions faithful priests and bishops may soon face.
None of us can foresee the future, but I personally have a bad sense about what is going to unfold. It’s gone from entertaining purely hypothetical scenarios, and moved to the realm of wholly plausible ones.
I truly don’t really ‘wonder’ about whether Cupich or any other bishop has studied Catholic doctrine. It is implicit in their position in the Church that they indeed, have studied doctrine. Their actions indicate they reject it. As for what will happen; just look at Vatican Council II. It was, and continues to be a ‘free for all’ in any given diocese, in any given parish, on any given Sunday. And it is a foregone conclusion that ‘wayward’ documents of continuing ‘aggiornamento’ have been and will be the order of the day.
I highly recommend listening to Fr. Gommar De Pauw’s speeches and sermons (available on youtube). He was a good and holy priest who, as early as 1965, was sounding the alarm bells. He was a doctor of canon law and a professor of theology and he was present as an adviser during Vatican II. He was on first person terms with Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Holy Office (now the CDF).
[If you have not read the so-called “Ottaviani Intervention” aka “A Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass” or Ottaviani’s “Duties of the Catholic State In Regard to Religion”, I strongly urge that you do so. Both are available online for a nominal price and the latter may be available for free since it was a speech Cdl. Ottaviani gave on March 2, 1953, in the auditorium of the Pontifical Lateran University.]
If you want the full flavor of what was happening during and after the council listen to Fr. De Pauw’s sermons. There is nothing new going on here. This has been a slow moving take down which has taken hundreds of years. We must remember that history isn’t accidental and doesn’t happen in a vaccum.
Thanks for the references.
Well, you’ll know of Ralph McInerny, who at least once said of councils something along the lines of–it takes a longtime for them to shake out and their fruits to be realized.
God writes in jagged lines, or rather what appears to us as such.
I had considered signing, but did not want to list my address, which I think was a good thing. It gave me time to think about it. While I get why some people are really into this petition thing, I think there are several problems with it. 1st, it’s a feel good exercise, it’s a step above writing letters to bishops who just don’t care about the damage they are doing. 2nd, one of the premises of it is if the sin-nod seems to be going toward a foregone conclusion, the “good” bishops should walk out. Perhaps I missed something here, but it’s been well known that the fix was in in even before this whole sin-nod thing even started! 3rd, when we have to start signing petitions in order to get Church leaders attention, the battle has already been lost. The Church, in its human element is for all intents and purposes pretty much finished in too many places. 4th, there’s all this talk about the crisis in the Church, and the sin-nod, and all the problems with secular society, but what are we going to DO about it? It’s simple, we’re going to talk and talk and talk, and write and read blog posts, and write articles complaining about the situation.
Oh sure, a few will pray, here and there, some will fast here and there, etc., etc. but at the end of the day nothing will have really changed, because I guarantee as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, the blogs will be filled with posts and comments and arguments about this and that, and on and on
but what will be accomplished? Nothing. There was an article written about 11 years ago, which was called “Assisting in the Restoration” by Jacob Michael. While I don’ t recommend the website it is on, I DO recommend reading the article, and putting some of the ideas into practice. And maybe even adding some of your own. Of course, some will read the article and agree with and say
they’ll do some of what it suggests, but in the end, very little will actually be done. I know, I didnt do much of what it suggested either. It’s time to wake up, you, me, everyone who claims to be concerned for the Church and for the evil taking place in the world, and start moving on from reading and writing endless blogs and comments, and actually DOING something that can actually
help. Here’s the article:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Sep/sep3fcs.htm
“[W]hen we have to start signing petitions in order to get Church leaders attention, the battle has already been lost.” St. Catherine of Siena would demur, I’m sure. The Catholic world has a lot of bad bishops at the moment. I don’t think it hurts at all to announce plainly to the world that we understand that fact, that for this reason we have to urge them to do what they should want to do in the first place. Silence is compliance.
“Silence is compliance” Exactly.
You do bring up a good point, but I don’t recall St. Catherine of Siena signing
a petition. And while I think she did a good and necessary thing in writing the
Pope to remind him of his duties, the circumstances were different. People have
been writing letters for decades. And now signing petitions, as though this were
some political thing that might be influenced the way a mayor or city council
might be influenced. While the bishops and Pope need to be reminded of what
the laity think, and of their duties, I just don’t see a petition as being a
viable option. Sure, it got some attention, for which Cardinal Pell was trotted
out to tell us a fairly standard bunch of PR stuff, but at the end of the day,
it won’t really affect anything. The fix was in, and we are not going to see
anything but a continuation of the revolution, that is barring a miracle.
As for silence is compliance, another good point. But seriously, do you really
think that the Vatican doesn’t monitor blogs & websites to see what people are
saying? The Pope and the bishops know what is going on out there, but many of
them just don’t care. Their goal is the continuation of the Revolution in the
Church, and no pesky Trad letter writers or petition signers are going to stop
them.
It might make some of us feel good for a while, but in the long run….
OK, so we agree at least that it does no harm; your point is that it simply does no good either. What is going on in this rigged Synod is, of course, highly political. The pope has discerned from his survey of the laity (I was never asked anything) that time has come to turn the Church into a giant Anglican Communion, or that is what he says at least (talk this last weekend). The only thing all this empty talk is doing is to undermine the very little respect some of us still hold for this man. I am beginning to think his entire papacy is about as authentic as this orchestrated Synod.
Remember Archbishop Cupich was
personally invited by the pope to the Synod? Here is who the Archbishop was was praising at the Synod:
http://abyssum.org/2015/10/17/are-these-the-people-archbishop-cupich-was-praising-in-the-synod/
If we agree on nothing else, I think any sentient Catholic has to acknowledge that Jorge Bergoglio has accumulated a rather large stable of very dubious friends over the years.
Not sufficient to convict him: Jesus did, too. But they repented.
Who said anything about “convicting” anyone? It is a simple observation, one that really can’t be denied.
Francis’s supporters deny that he and they are enemies of the Faith and the Natural Law.
I know, Lynda; they’re in the business of denying many things lately.
I’m not denying it. Francis appears to be an activist Pope.
St. Peter was told that whatsoever he loosed on Earth, would be loosed in Heaven, and whatsoever he bound on Earth, would be bound in Heaven.
St. Peter was not told that such actions would be without cost to us: There may be a link between the mass martyrdom of Christians in the world today, and what the Church led by Francis is trying to do.
Mon ami, you make an excellent point here, one I hadn’t considered. Given the inventiveness of the Bergoglio Brigade, there is probably a great deal more punishment in store for all of us if you are right.
That’s blaspphemous. Our Lord called sinners to repentance and conversion. Francis gathers enemies of the Deposit of Faith to continually attack the Faith and the moral law. Such black blindness and denial is diabolic.
It is Christian to want to exculpate sinners, if it is at all possible. I’m uncomfortable with some of Francis’s work and attitudes – and I think he probably should be. Being loved by the world is a bad sign for a Christian.
He was invited because he’s a heretic.
Birds of a feather….?
Another addition to my comment below. How does the saying go? The ‘skids are greased?’
http://abyssum.org/2015/10/17/are-these-the-people-archbishop-cupich-was-praising-in-the-synod/
Zut! There simply is no bottom (no pun intended) to modern “morality”, is there?
This ‘morality’ isn’t so modern really. But it’s what Hoffman calls the ‘processing of the mind’ or what Watt calls ‘predictive programming’. Whatever one may call it, it is psychological warfare to slowly (over many generations) get people to think and act in certain ways, even if it is to their own detriment and obviously to the detriment of the family and society. That old saying is true: the proof is in the pudding.
“That’s in the long-term interest of everyone, because no matter how it might turn out, people want to feel that the bishops got to that situation fairly,”
I don’t care if they arrived at decisions fairly. I care whether they upheld the doctrine and traditions of the Catholic faith. If 70% synod fathers agreed to sodomite unions, that does not make it OK to allow it in the name of fairness.
I get the feeling, and I don’t think I’m alone, that the faithful laity have not heard the last of these prevailing arguments. The devil’s not a quitter. Things may quiet down for awhile but those of us who know that God’s way trumps man’s way are in the minority. The majority are content to “live and let live” no matter what. How do I know? Because just a few years ago such chaos as this would have been unthinkable.Truth will prevail – but it’s going to be a hard winter.
Thanks Steve for pushing the petition. How can it be harmful to sign and submit a document that supports the teaching of the Catholic Church? Let’s keep the pressure on. The devil never relaxes.
God bless your work. Thank you.
Although I at first thought that The Faithful should not attend a Synod where the unfaithful would deny that The Word of God, Jesus The Christ,
Instead of walking out of the Synod, could the faithful fathers vote to reject every article of the final document in order to unanimous result the entire document? Or due you think the the heretic powerbrokers would just “deem” the acceptance of their report regardless of the actual vote?
You may recall that during the last Synod, they voted to remove offensive language from the working documents, only to have their votes overruled by the pope.
Now this weekend we got news that “in yesterday’s keynote speech, delivered as the synod enters its last week, Francis told them that the decentralisation will be imposed from above.”
He is autocratic, and he will have his way.
Yes, but kindly old Pope Francis always listens …. before he imposes what he intended even before anyone spoke. That’s SO much better than in the bad old days of Benedict and other pontifical tyrants.
The Synod Walk Out Letter and Petition that you and others created is now a part of the history of this Synod. It will be forever recorded in history along with other notable interventions such as the Ottaviani Intervention and Mit brennender Sorge. I thank you. I admire you. I respect you. I praise you.
Thanks, Gus. It would indeed be interesting if this became part of that story. This is a pivotal moment in the Church. We fight because we love her.
Nice article at Rorate Caeli about the intention of Francis to ram through the dissolution of the Catholic Church as we know it and as it has been known for a very long time. He wants to turn it into some kind of Protestant enterprise with branch offices making big time decisions all over the globe. Rorate Caeli points out that this has been his intention since the beginning of this catastrophic papacy and proves the point with documentation. That smoke of Satan in the Vatican is becoming a roaring fire. Read it…and then pour yourself another comforting drink.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/10/doctrinal-devolution-to-bishops.html#more