Rorate Caeli published an urgent report (as of this morning) on the opposition of Synod fathers to communion for the divorced and remarried:
Urgent news from inside the Synod hall today:
URGENT ++ OVERWHELMING majority against communion to “remarried divorcees, according to #Synod sources++ https://t.co/RHlM10cUOK
— Rorate Caeli (@RorateCaeli) October 20, 2015
The news source is from the correspondent of the highly liberal official newspaper of the French Bishops’ Conference, La Croix, Sebastien Maillard – the head count comes directly from inside the hall (tweeted 16 minutes ago at the time of this post):
Ecrasante majorité contre la communion aux divorcés remariés, selon observateur en salle du Synode — Sébastien Maillard (@seb_maillard) October 20, 2015
The text reads: “Overwhelming majority against communion for remarried divorces, according to observer in the Synod hall”
The question on my mind is simple: what difference does it make, practically speaking, if the majority of Synod fathers opposes this? The number of votes according to the Synod rules didn’t matter when it came to controversial language the Synod fathers did not muster enough votes to include in the concluding document to last year’s Synod:
The final document of the Extraordinary Synod was released Saturday as the Synod Fathers voted to approve all 62 paragraphs, but with three paragraphs not receiving the normally required two-thirds majority vote.
The three paragraphs, which in the past would not have been included in a final synod report, speak of: 1) permitting certain remarried divorced Catholics to receive communion after a period of penitence, 2) invoking a deeper call to understanding of the issue of spiritual communion for the divorced and remarried and 3) receiving homosexuals “with respect and gentleness.” However, the document has removed the much-criticized language that spoke of “valuing” the homosexual orientation.
And we know that this happened by the direct intervention of Pope Francis:
Why did the final Relatio published in the Lineamenta include the paragraphs on homosexuality, extra-marital cohabitation and Communion for the divorced-and-remarried that failed to gain the approval of the Synod Fathers in October. (Paragraphs 52,53,55 in the Italian; the English has a slightly different numbering system.)
“It was the Pope’s decision to include the points that did not receive the two-thirds majority,” Cardinal Baldisseri responded. “The Pope said: ‘These three points received an absolute majority. They were therefore not rejected with a ‘no,’ as they received more than 50 percent approval. They are therefore issues that still need to be developed. We as a Church want a consensus. These texts can be modified, that’s clear. Once there has been further reflection, they can be modified.”
The Cardinal also informed us that the 46 questions published in the Lineamenta were the work of both the General Secretariat and the 15 members of the Council of the Secretariat. Responses are due April 15th.
Asked if the Pope had reviewed the questions before they were published, the Cardinal replied: “The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence. Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the Relatio synodi [final report]were seen by him before they were published.”
He added, wryly: “This point is important not only because of his authority, but also it puts the Secretary General at ease.”
We know also that Pope Francis unilaterally imposed the two motu proprio letters on the annulment process, having had them drafted in secret, without consulting those canonical experts whose opinions and input should have been crucial in such documents. We know further that he already plans to delegate the authority on such matters through forced decentralization. From Damian Thompson this past Sunday:
Pope Francis yesterday gave an address to the profoundly divided Synod on the Family in which he confirmed his plans to decentralise the Catholic Church – giving local bishops’ conferences more freedom to work out their own solutions to the problems of divorce and homosexuality.
This is the nightmare of conservative Catholic cardinals, including – unsurprisingly – those in the Vatican. They thought they had a sufficient majority in the synod to stop the lifting of the ban on divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion, or any softening on the Church’s attitude to gay couples.
But in yesterday’s keynote speech, delivered as the synod enters its last week, Francis told them that the decentralisation will be imposed from above.
While deliberately referring to himself as ‘Bishop of Rome’, to underline his solidarity with local bishops everywhere (as opposed to the Roman Curia – i.e., ‘the Vatican’), he invoked the power of the Supreme Pontiff to overrule mere cardinals. ‘The synod journey culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, called to speak authoritatively as the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians,’ he said. This is more authoritarian language than I can remember Benedict XVI using as pope. It means: I call the shots. In the end, you listen to me, not the other way around.
One statement in particular horrified the conservatives. Francis told them that ‘the sense of faith impedes the rigid separation between the Teaching Church and the Learning Church, because the flock possesses its own “sense” to discern the new roads that the Lord reveals to the church…’ Meaning? We shall have to wait until the Pope delivers a final response to the synod next year.
This is such a startling development that it deserves fuller analysis once the synod is over. I was going to say ‘once the dust has settled’, but I don’t expect any dust-settling in the foreseeable future – at least until after the next conclave, which lots of conservative Catholics want to happen as soon as possible.
It has long been my concern that Francis will make an end-run around the restrictions of papal infallibility by not making a decision that is binding, but rather by delegating the decision on matters as important as Holy Communion given to the unrepentant to Bishops, who must determine their own “pastoral process.” We know what this would lead to. We know that it could be done through ambiguities and vagueries, so that no one could easily pin the blame on the Holy Father. We even know the language to look out for – the idea that the Eucharist is “not a prize for the strong, but a source of strength for the weak, for sinners.”
It saddened many of us when Pope Benedict abdicated the papacy in 2013. Seeing him now, looking healthy and happy, we wonder if much of this could have been prevented if he had stayed on. But of the two scenarios we have and are witnessing — abdicating one’s office for fear that one lacks the strength to do the right thing, and abdicating one’s duties of office because one is unwilling or unable to believe a thing is right, and thus worth doing — the latter is a far, far more dangerous and damaging course. And the latter is precisely what Pope Francis has done thus far. He has disciplined not a single bishop or cardinal who speaks openly against Catholic teaching on the Sixth Commandment, and his silence, coupled with his homilies railing against ridigity and doctors of the law and hermeneutics of conspiracy give us clear indicators of his sympathies.
Of course, we saw the handwriting on the wall in numerous gestures over the past 31 months, gestures we and others have documented through countless posts and articles while we have seen our concerns go dismissed and even scoffed at.
If our concerns about this Synod prove to be wrong, what a joyous opportunity for humility it will be! If our concerns are proven right, woe to those through whom this scandal will come – a scandal that will rock the Church to its very foundations.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
A couple thoughts/questions:
1. If one Episcopal Conference allows active homosexuals to receive communion, would those rights extend to any mother Conference that does not allow that pastoral practice, e.g. Germany and Poland?
2. Since Pope Francis is fond of emphasizing his position as Bishop of Rome, would it be more appropriate that he don the black cassocks and live outside the Vatican? Maybe he should only wear his white cassocks when exercising papal duties.
3. Shepherd watch over sheep, which are dumb animals and it left to there own devices will got themselves into a mess. The same goes for the people, if left without a strong shepherd, i.e., pope and/or bishop will find a host of ways to trick themselves into believing error and heresy. Decentralizing foundational pastoral decisions will definitely lead the faithful into error and damnation.
“Decentralizing foundational pastoral decisions will definitely lead the faithful into error and damnation.” One need only look to what has happened to the “Anglican Communion” to know what a flat-out dumbass idea this one is. Not that failure ever gave pause to cardinals like Marx, Danneels, and Kasper. From the available evidence, they seem to thrive on it.
Well lets not forget the Eastern Orthodox. If we hadn’t started this crazy idea of trying pretty hard to be buddies with the Orthodox, this decentralization idea may never have entered the picture.
Personally I kinda look forward to a time when we’re called to evangelize members of heretical local ‘churches’. It will be, shall we say, interesting times indeed 😉
“Communion for remarried divorcees does not affect doctrine but discipline”
And if those weasel words tickle one’s fancy, try these from the rebel from Washington.
May the Almighty deliver us from these prelates.
My prayer exactly!
I wonder … has the Bishop of Rome ever referred to himself as the Pope?
I certainly understand the anger and bitterness some people have towards Benedict XVI for resigning.
For my part, I am loyal to him, believe that history is long from being written on his decision, and I trust his spiritual discernment on his decisions – to be frank, I believe a mystical experience (hopefully of Divine origin) may have even been granted him to cause him to make such a bold and humble resignation.
On top of that, when one sees pictures of him from February 2013 – most notably from the balcony of Castel San Gandolfo at the moment his resignation on the 28th – he looks like living death! Only recently did it occur to me that he was possibly doing major fasts at that time.
If he had not resigned, I believe he would be dead by now anyways. And, as leaked out in 2013 and most recently, the movement to have Cardinal Bergoglio elected had been in the works since the conclave of 2005 and he was a made man (at least by the conspiracy of others) who would have been placed in his current role at some point.
Father, St. Peter had a vision too as he was leaving Rome to escape martyrdom. Jesus led him back and he was martyred. Resignation wasn’t an option.
I know. Like I said, this isn’t over yet. I saw some essay these past few blurry weeks, but I thought was posted here, about the worst scandals in papal history which pointed out that that very first pope himself even committed apostasy when he denied Christ.
We cannot stop praying for Benedict or Francis.
They are in my prayers’ intentions, Father. I’ve been better about praying the rosary every night.
God bless you Father.
Come on!!! How can you compare Peter who denied Jesus because he was afraid of the brutal crucifixion with an autocratic Pope Francis that denies Jesus because he want to please and appease the world and because thinks he is smarter and more merciful than Christ?
I would never compare Pope Francis to any saint, at this point. I simply meant that the first pope committed mistakes and missteps in the Gospel and made a serious denial of Jesus at the beginning of the Passion and he almost fled Rome at the end. Yet Jesus chose twelve men to be the first priests and bishops who all abandoned Him in some way – even John, for a little while. Someone recently said that, for that reason, we shouldn’t be too stunned that among future clerics some may be lousy men. Yet it is even possible for lousy clerics to be converted.
Again the Apostles had their weakness but they never teached heresies and deceived and affirmed sinners in their sins. Pope Francis is even more dangerous than the depraved and rotten renaissance Popes combined since these Popes didn’t dare to question the Catholic teachings like Francis does . I’m not stunned that there are anti-Catholic clerics and apostates inside the Church cause Jesus and the Apostles warned us from false teachers and wolves in sheep’s clothings. Paul instructed the faithful Christians not tolerate false teachers heretics inside the Church and to remove them from the Church, yet the Popes and the Vatican ignores the instruction of Paul an tolerates the known and ravaging wolves inside the Church in the name of mercy and clemency. Pope Francis appoints and empowers one anti-Catholic and pro-homosexual after the other. Speak volumes. You can’t do nohing and wait till lousy clerics probably convert one day while in the meantime they continue with poisoning people’s soul with their false teachings.
I do not disagree with a single thing that you wrote., Frauke.
Peter did not commit apostasy as he did not understand the truth about Jesus.
He never did such a thing after the Resurrection
Perhaps I shouldn’t have used ‘apostasy’ but Judas was not the only one to betray Christ that night. After Pentecost, then they all truly knew. And I have a deep devotion to Saint Peter, so I would never throw him under the bus.
Dear Father. True enough, and yet Jesus distributed Communion to Judas so, maybe that will be advanced at the Synod as justification for what many desire: You know, Jesus gave Communion of Judas so who are we to withhold Communion from adulterers?
Pope Benedict was just too selfish to abandon the Chruch in full knowlegde that anti-Catholic and pro-homosexual wolves in bishop’s clothing are trying to hijack the Church. He knew that the liberal bishops and cardinals are working their butts off for maiming the Catholic Church and that they are bringing the wrecking ball against the Catholic faith in position.
Why is it SO HARD for people to recognize that we are INDEED in the END TIMES as we know them. Read the deathbed prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi himself to realize WHO we are dealing with! Pray for all those who are defying the Will of God in this GREAT MOMENT IN HISTORY! Didn’t you believe that the Book of Revelation would REALLY come about??
Nana, it’s not so hard, but it’s not the first time in history we’ve heard this. Prophets of impending doom are found in many religions and civilizations, but to date they’ve all had one thing very much in common: they’ve been dead wrong. The Church wisely counsels the faithful NOT to indulge in this kind of thinking.
In the past few months, I have discerned that many faithful don’t seem to really acknowledge that Jesus will return. Right now, I am focusing on time before the Blessed Sacrament, praying the rosary, attending to my daily duties. It’s a good method to follow for like AND preparing for the end times since no one knows the hour.
Thank you, Father, for replying, I agree that many faithful AND many religious no longer acknowledge that Jesus will return! I also go to Adoration, pray the Rosary, Divine Mercy Chaplet n The Chaplet of the Precious Blood along with The Mystical Prayers which were given to Barnabas Nwoye, a teenager in Nigeria, as the ultimate weapon against Satan n evil spirits for these days of the final showdown between good n evil that will usher in the New Era.I am in a nightly international teleconference prayer grp in which all participants believe we are in the End Times n a priest sometimes joins us. In His Infinite Mercy God will soon give all at the same time the Great Gift of The Illumination of Conscience so that we can see our souls as He does n we can choose to amend our lives or not! This day will happen during a VERY CHAOTIC PERIOD of war, earthquakes n a crisis in the church In the history of the world God in His Infinite Goodness has always sent prophets to warn His Creation. BUT many have refused to listen! His Beloved Mother has REPEATEDLY given messages several times i.e. cardinals will be against cardinals, bishops against bishops . . . When the King of France did not respond to the request to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus what happened after 100yrs of waiting?? Do you think that Jesus will allow His Beloved Mother’s request to continue to be dishonored?? That 100yrs expires in 2017!!
Agreed. La Salette, Fatima, Akita, etc., etc. (Also, another apparition which I won’t even mention because people flip out over it, having been told that it’s heretical. It’s spot on about the Bishop of Rome.) I wouldn’t dream of dismissing the BVM as a prophet of doom.
Funny, I’ve often had the same thought re spiritual vision. One thing I can say about Benedict/Ratzinger is that contrary to whatever valid criticisms one might have regarding his involvement with VII, and his philosophy of the early 1970s, he is the only prelate I can think of who has since repudiated his earlier errors (most notably his support for communion for the divorced and remarried that he held 40 years or so back). There may still be concerns, I have some, but I suspect they are small and prudential in the great scheme of things – indeed they may well be legitimate matters in which “who am I to judge?” is a valid response.
I agree with you, and as far as I can tell so far, so does Chris Ferrara. Fr. Hunwicke, on his blog, recently did two posts on the 2nd edition of the book co-authored by Chris Ferrara. The book is entitled “The Regime of Novelty in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to the Francis Revolution” . My copy of the book just arrived yesterday, so I have not yet read it.
Fr. Hunwicke, who has high praise for the book, and highly recommends reading it says, “The First Edition of this book drew to a conclusion with a less than fulsome judgement upon Cardinal Ratzinger (and especially his Dominus Iesus), and a pessimistic analysis of the state of the Church. In his new chapters, Chris Ferrara, like the great S Augustine in his Retractationes, revises his judgements in the light of events since the end of the Pontificate of S John Paul II.”
For myself, a young child when Vatican II took place, I look forward to reading this book.
Thanks for that. Nice to know I’m in good company. Of course, I love Fr Hunwicke, and Mr Ferrara, and wish I had my hands on that book. God bless you.
Exactly and amazingly right! On the nail’s head!
Steve: I’ve got what I think is a great idea. Why not start a petition (there is still time) to ask the faithful synod Fathers, to publish their interventions?! Those 72 excerpts published by Bishop Gaedecki for the interventions of a single day, really clarified how there is really a very noisy and empowered MINORITY of bishops trying to damage the family and the Church.
Card. Baldisieri said each one could publish only their own… So let’s do it! Let have all of those which matter published without breaking the rule!
I got an image of a “father” who let’s his kids run around the house playing with knives and matches and screaming obscenities, while he sits and watches in silence, only speaking criticizing the rigid and judgmental neighbors from time to time.
I will join you, Steve, and publicly apologize to the pope for having doubted him if he does the right thing. I will then drown my personal embarrassment in celebratory toasts to his health…. after I attend a Mass of thanksgiving and say a Rosary in thanks to Our Lady. But thirty-one months of “surprises”, disappointments, and disgust tell me all the above is merely a pipe dream, that Francis will indeed deliver to Holy Mother Church an historic blow to the solar plexus as you fear.
The problem is that at this point, confusion has already been so well and wildly sown, that even if Francis issues some milquetoast statement of scant orthodoxy, the damage to the Church, vis-a-vis the shift in global consciousness (by design), is already a thing of Neronian proportions.
Unfortunately, I think you are exactly right.
“If our concerns about this Synod prove to be wrong, what a joyous opportunity for humility it will be!”
Stop dreaming. It helps no one.
Stop being a jackass. It doesn’t help anyone either.
I believe you have that exactly backwards. Voicing the truth as reflected in a preponderance of the evidence hurts no one.
Pleasant fictions without any evidentiary basis are quite the other other thing.
Huh? Do you mean “Baseless falsehoods are something else”?
I want to make sure that I understand you: Asserting that the synod is on its way to drastically altering doctrine in the guise of altering discipline is spreading a “baseless falsehood.”
Is that it?
Ah, no, that is not what I meant. I was simply attempting to clean up a hopelessly messy English sentence, the one you wrote in your post. Before retirement I was a teacher. My inclination when students wrote phrases like “…without any evidentiary basis…” was to brain them; fortunately for them, mine is a pacific nature.
“Hopelessly messy” exists in the eye of the beholder I guess (though I certainly hope you didn’t teach English composition). I was also a teacher (for 20 years). There is nothing in my sentence that is messy, forget “hopelessly” so. There is, however, something floridly hyperbolic in applying the words “baseless falsehood” to the sentiment I expressed. Either “baseless” or “falsehood” is not understood. I can’t say which.
For the love of Mike, you really are dense! I was recasting your bloviated sentence, thus the quotation marks; I said in five words what you put in twelve. What did you teach, Home Economics?
I think that I shall treat the A in composition you have awarded yourself with the deep skepticism it deserves. That you imagine “baseless falsehoods” is superior to “without evidentiary basis” is quite amusing, densely speaking.
I taught physics and mathematics.
Ah, now I understand.
To preclude the possibility of a happy outcome puts limits on the action of God; anyone who reads my writing knows that I’m not optimistic, humanly speaking. The insinuation that because I’m covering my bases on the possibility of divine intervention I’m some sort of a Pollyanna is, not to put too fine a point on it, jackassery.
I am glad that the Synod participants overwhelmingly voted against communion to the divorced and remarried. It will be interesting to see how the Vatican Press office will ‘spin’ this.
Although I also wished the orthodox Synod participants had walked out, while announcing the Church’s teaching and praxis on divorced and remarried and homosexual unions was not up for discussion, I am now more optimistic regarding the resistance to Pope Francis’ threat to essentially “Protestantize” the Church.
I believe most of the Cardinals, (those who were at the Synod, and those who weren’t) understand the tragic consequences of the Holy Father’s threat of devolution of authority to local bishops by the Church of Rome. I believe the Cardinals, the princes of the Church, will probably take steps, if they have not already, to prevent it.
Why do I say this? Evidence. We, the laity, did not know about the books (Remaining in the Truth of Christ, the ones by the 11 Cardinals and Africans, respectively, and the one by Edward Pentin, this last, the open support of at least Cardinals Napier and Burke) until the books had gone to press. That is, until they were a done deal. Moreover, we did not know of the existence of the private letter of the 13 Cardinals to the Holy Father until the letter was leaked. Given this evidence, I cannot believe that the cardinals will just lie down and let the Holy Father inflict major damage lasting for centuries on the Bride of Christ . There is probably a lot of undisclosed/ secretive/ confidential/ private sessions among orthodox cardinals on how to nullify this threat. If the Holy Father remains obstinate, a schism may even result. But I do believe they will act.
That being said, we the faithful laity still have our duty to pray the rosary, fast, do penance, and continue to let our voices be heard. We, too, will not just roll over and let injury be done to Our Holy Mother Church.
Have to remark, all that speculation over the canonical implications of Benedict’s use of the word ‘munus’ (if I have my recollection right) in his resignation may well be worth revisiting some time soon.
I read a comment recently referring to the possibility of Pope Francis having a “holy cunning” – drawing the bad bishops out into the open.
This doesn’t wash with me. The end doesn’t justify the means. These prelates are in Pope Francis’ sphere of influence and he should correct them publicly (to repair the scandal caused publicly) sooner rather than later. Why? Because what if one of these men were to die tonight? We are responsible as Catholics for one another – fraternal correction is a spiritual work of mercy.
I’ve heard that comment from some people around me as well. Didn’t wash with me for the same reasons.
I’ve voiced it (the Holy cunning thing), but only ironically. There is a certain poetry in life when irony becomes reality, but I’m not holding out for it – that would only spoil the rhyme of the real after all 😉
Now Michael Voris in his Vortex from yesterday – “Failed Papacy?” – seems to be saying that Pope Francis is some sort of holy simpleton. This doesn’t sit right with me either.
Me neither. For my money the best take In all these clerics is the one which sees the past 100 years as a revolution by an intellectual elite who look with disdain on simple piety, the practices of the faithful, images of the saints and the like. They’re imbued with a certain worldly philosophy which sees the institutional church as a social structure, and they aim to direct that structure to social ends.
It is covered well in this article by LMS Chairman: http://www.lmschairman.org/2015/10/can-traditional-mass-preserve-orthodoxy.html (particularly in the comments).
I’m not convinced that Bergoglio is a particularly intelligent man, but he is enamoured of this intelligentsia as far as I can make out.
Yet…, we are reminded, again and again, by Our Lady of Fatima on the errors of Russia. We’re might be late to prevent the errors to spreading into the Skeleton of the Church, but when will our Holy Father call all of the bishops to join him Consecrating Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, even under the threat of being excommunicated?
This is what Archbishop Stankiewicz of Riga, Lativa has stated as well. It has been completely discussed and is no longer considered that important. I have just published much of his address in the aula (ignored/censored by the arch-Modernist Holy See Press Office). It is also a rebuke to Cupich re: Holy Communion for sodomites. Again, the silence of these Modernist termites speaks volumes as to their adultero-homo propaganda inclinations
I cannot stand to read another word about the Synod on the Family so I wonder if anyone who is following it can tell me if there is any mention of modesty, or how the dignity of men and women are effected by what they wear?
The reason I bring this up is I found a wonderful website that offers free “booklets” you can download or read online that contains different issues pertaining to the Catholic faith and I recently read this one entitled: “Those Who Serve God Should Not Follow The Fashions.” It contains the teachings of Sacred Scripture, orthodox priests, and popes regarding this most important, but totally neglected, aspect of human dignity which relates to the different roles men and women have as well as what happens (and has happened) when men and women dress immodestly.
This, I believe, ties in directly with the subject of family because it is the father and mother who are the role model for the children and without the proper model, children cannot learn how to properly develop nor live a life pleasing to God (and the parents cannot either).
Pope Pius XII: “It is often said almost with passive resignation that fashions reflect the customs of a people. But it would be more exact and much more useful to say that they express the decision and moral direction that a nation intends to take: either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by religion and civilization.”
On the other hand, the revolution in which we have lived for the past 50+ years is the revolution designed by the Freemasons to destroy the once Catholic culture on which Western Civilization was founded, and with it the Catholic religion itself. This single quote from a 1928 letter of a Mason makes clear their plan: “Religion does not fear the dagger’s point; but it can vanish under corruption. Let us not grow tired of corruption; we may use a pretext such as sport, hygiene, health resorts. It is necessary to corrupt, that our boys and girls practice nudism in dress. To avoid too much reaction, one would have to progress in a methodical manner: first, undress up to the elbow; then up to the knees; then arms and legs completely uncovered; later, the upper part of the chest, the shoulders, etc. etc.” (International Review of Freemasonry, 1928)
The website is:
Evidently, wherever Bp. Chaput serves and and then moves on, he leaves behind a trail of orthodoxy and eloquence. Here is his successor in Denver roasting the bottoms of Teutonic prelates over a fire fueled by English history.
My optimism that I wrote of previously was unfounded. In this pontificate of Pope Francis, the chaos and confusion will continue as there is now a proposal to set up a commission to study the proposal of Kasper which has been soundly rejected…see here:
It’s time for the weary bishops that Robert Royal alludes to walk out: even though th
I don’t believe that Pope Francis is drawing the bad bishops out into the open, I think God is doing it so that those who are faithful can make an informed decision, follow these bad bishops into hell or follow the good bishops into heaven. I see how easily so many have followed the bad bishops in the past, while knowing the truth of the Church back in the 1960s and 1970s, most Catholics followed the bishops who were gutting the Church with much joy. They liked the allowance for sin despite having a conscience learned from good nuns and the Baltimore Catechism. Today we can make a stand, we have options. The question is, are we willing to make the sacrifices in order to make that stand.
For example, I have chosen to go to a diocesan FSSP parish where it is more demanding than the average parish and the Mass is in Latin. But, I don’t have to worry about a new liberal bishop replacing an orthodox priest with a heretic, or a orthodox bishop being replaced with a heretical bishop. It doesn’t make a difference because the FSSP parish will always follow the truthes of the Church. But I had to make a choice, was I willing to go to a Mass where I had to follow in a Missal to understand, was I willing to drive 120 miles to go to Mass on Sundays, holy days, and other important days? Was I willing to put my own desires and preferences aside to follow God more closely? Was I willing to help on building projects because the parish was too poor to hire someone? Was I willing to get my conscience squeezed ever tighter as our priest demanded that we become holier? Was I willing to follow Jesus words and put God first, neighbors second, and myself last?
I pray that God continues to support me in my efforts, because I couldn’t do it on my own, I am far too selfish. This parish along with Holy Spirit has grown my faith much farther than my own efforts ever could. The question is, are we willing to stand up for truth like the Crusaders or is it just words.
A broader question: If their votes are counted… Will it matter?!
This article is solid in reference to the (what I see as) lunatic proposal to devolve authority to regional or national bishops’ conferences. Its common sense is irrefutable, especially in the paragraph that highlights the artificiality of episcopal groupings.
They’ll be counted (maybe), then sent to the circular file.
For those who believe Bishop Cupich(ulation) believes in nothing: