Will The Upcoming Sin-Nod Lead To Schism?

That is a very real concern being voiced by some faithful bishops and laypersons.  Before we watch a video dealing with these questions (ht: LifeSite News), let's digest a piece of news from Rome.  Within the city limits, a square will be dedicated to Martin Luther - with no opposition from the Vatican.  This is not "ecumenism" in any healthy sense of the word.  Martin Luther was a heretic who did much to undermine Christianity, leading to death and destruction - and not just in this life.  Now consider that lately the German Catholic Conference has been standing in open defiance of the Magisterium.  Who is the president of the German Catholic Conference?  Cardinal Reinhard Marx - the same who organized the "shadow council" (now occurring) and who is among the pope's closest advisers.  So now we have the Vatican sitting silently by, while a German heretic is being honored in Rome.  Might this be a nod to the current German heretics?  As you watch the video, notice the references to both Martin Luther and German bishops who are spreading heresy.

By the way - check out Cardinal Marx's crosier at 28:19.  What is that thing supposed to be??

Cardinals Burke And Muller Speak Truth To Rogue Prelates

LifeSiteNews published some excerpts of an interview that Cardinal Burke gave two months ago to them.  I link to it now and urge its study.  He points out the absurdity of:

• Trying to claim that there is some "redeeming" value to homosexual acts
• The use of contraception to be "responsible stewards of the earth"
• The many anomalies of the sin-nod

Similarly, Cardinal Muller had some words of truth for his fellow German bishops, stating quite clearly that local bishops' conferences could not decide for themselves what constitutes dogma and discipline, stating that it was "an absolutely anti-Catholic idea that does not respect the Catholicity of the Church".  He also stated that "the president of an episcopal conference is nothing more than a technical moderator" and that a country's dioceses are not subsidiaries of that country's episcopal conference.  I recall that Pope Benedict XVI also made the point of stating that these conferences have no inherent authority in and of themselves.  This only serves to strengthen my belief that these bishops' conferences are snakes in the grass and should be immediately dismantled.

I pray that the words of these two good cardinals are heeded and studied, as antidotes to the "maturation" that is being shoved down our throats to make us susceptible for more doctrinal poison that no doubt is planned for the sin-nod that will occur in October 2015.

From The Maturation Department: Forward, Ho!

Like The Titanic,  The Pope Moves Us Forward!

March 7th was the 50th anniversary for Mass in the vernacular.  Pope Francis celebrated the occasion in a Mass in Rome.  Speaking of the "liturgical reforms" of the past 50 years, he said in his homily, "Let us thank the Lord for what he has done in his Church in these 50 years of liturgical reform. It was truly a courageous gesture for the Church to draw near to the people of God so that they are able to understand well what they are doing. This is important for us, to follow the Mass in this way. It is not possible to go backwards. We must always go forward. Always forward!  And those who go backward are mistaken. Let us go forward on this path."

An important note: When I speak of "liturgical reforms" in quotes, I am NOT speaking of the Novus Ordo rite, as stipulated in real Vatican II documents.  Rather, I refer to popular bastardizations of the same.  Vatican II never mandated:

• Use of the vernacular.  Rather, they mentioned that Latin was to be held in high esteem and to be commonly used
• Turning of altar towards the people
• Removal of Communion rails
• Distribution of Holy Communion in the hand rather than on the tongue

So what are some of the fruits of these bogus "liturgical reforms" for which we should be "thankful"?

• Clown and balloon Masses
• Mass attendance plummeting from 80% of Catholic to approximately 10%
• Terrible seminary formation (although that might be up-swinging slightly)
• Reception of Sacraments declining
• Contraception and abortion being practiced by Catholics resulting in..
• Reduced numbers of parishioners, resulting in disappearance of entire parishes
• Religious orders vanishing due to lack of vocations

That list could go on and on; you get the point.  Anyway, the logic in his statements is fundamentally flawed.  "It is not possible to go backwards"?  How about when the course on which one is embarked is wrong or even sinful?  Isn't repentance and conversion all about changing course?  By the way - USA Today confirms the growing popularity of the Latin Mass, that is, Mass in the Extraordinary Rite.

But I would suspect this talk of "moving forward" and "not possible to go backwards" is really part and parcel of the "maturation effort" that seems to have been put in place since the sin-nod ended last October.

We all recall that disastrous interim relatio that came out midway into the sin-nod last October.  It is important to remind ourselves that far from being unaware of this horrid document, that Pope Francis knew of its contents and approved of its release.  At the conclusion of this sin-nod, the pope said we had a "year to mature" before next October's sin-nod.  That remark seemed to be the signal for the progressives in Church hierarchy to bombard us all with "maturation efforts".  I had to develop the "maturation department" on this blog to keep track of it.  We know that there will be more "maturation" efforts during these next few months.  By the way - speaking of "bombardment", realize that it is a tactic of psychological warfare; read this and see how relevant it is to all this "maturation".

One of the latest examples is an effort by Gary Cutting, a philosophy professor at Notre Dame and obviously a protege of the late Fr Hesburgh.  A quote from the Cardinal Newman Society indicates that Cutting finds the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ to be "philosophically untenable and theologically unnecessary".  I sure hope he repents before he has that conversation before Our Lord, but I digress.  To be fair to Cutting, what he said is just a step or two beyond the dissident plop that was the interim relatio.

Edward Pentin is a British journalist (and faithful Catholic) who did much to shine the light on some chicanery last October.  A few days ago he published a piece that explains why the selection of attendees at the next synod may be an attempt to stack the attendance with those of dissident leanings.  We certainly know that Cardinal Burke won't be in attendance this time.

While the Pope cannot formally declare error (lest he be an anti-pope), we do know that grave harm can be done in the name of being "pastoral".  All indications are that this is a key motive behind all the nonsense oozing from progressive quarters in the Church.  We will keep the spotlight on the cockroaches.  We will continue to pray - and maybe discontinue donations.  I'm sure there will be updates.

How The Powers That Be Evaluated The Sin-Nod

Humor often contains copious grains of truth!

From The Maturation Department - Cardinal Baldiserri Embraces Heresy Of Modernism

I came across a video of a talk given by Father Paul Scalia of the Diocese of Arlington.  This is an expose of the heresy known as modernism.  In it Father details why it is a heresy and what various popes, particularly Pope St Pius X, had to say about it.  One of the links I'll give below gives the entire text of the Oath Against Modernism that the sainted pontiff ordered all clergy and seminary teachers to take.  The context of the video itself makes plain that this talk occurred several years ago when Pope Benedict XVI was still the reigning pontiff so he could not have had any premonition of the events of the past year, particularly of the disastrous sin-nod of last October.  One salient point came at the 25:57 mark, when Father said "once you have 'evolution of dogma' there's really no dogma whatsoever".  Hold that truth in mind as we proceed through this post.

Two weeks ago, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldiserri opened a three-day conference of lay and family movements.  Aleteia has more coverage of that.  The conference was called to reflect upon the preparatory document for next October's synod; encompassed in that was the final report from last October's sin-nod: the one that contained, by order of Pope Francis, the three morally questionable statements that had been voted down by the synod fathers.

The Cardinal took some questions.  One of them was from an organization that expressed shock that Cardinal Kasper could suggest that those divorced and remarried Catholics who never had their first marriages declared null by the Church, should be able to receive Holy Communion while living in de facto adultery.  (By the way - here's some more examples of the problems with Cardinal Kasper.)  The Cardinal replied by saying "we shouldn't be shocked that there is a different position from the 'common doctrine'".   Then he went on to say, "there’s no reason to be scandalized that there is a cardinal or a theologian saying something that’s different than the so-called ‘common doctrine.’ This doesn’t imply a going against. It means reflecting. Because dogma has its own evolution; that is a development, not a change." Emphasis mine, and for reasons stated in the first paragraph.

Edward Pentin has a brief commentary, but his includes the text of Pope Pius X's Oath Against Modernism.  He too highlighted the relevant statements.  If Cardinal Baldserri took that oath, he violated it.  By the way - if the name "Edward Pentin" seems familiar, he's the British journalist whose career Cardinal Kasper tried to destroy after Pentin caught Kasper in a lie regarding his "african" quip - but I digress.  A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics has some additional commentary.

Some may wonder why I harp on Cardinal Baldiserri since the sin-nod happened in last October.  What happened last October was a preparation for the Ordinary Synod on the Family that will occur next October.  Baldiserri, by the pope's designation, will have the same leadership role next October as he did last time.  You must understand the minds and the errors that will pervade next year's meeting.  Understand, too, that the pope said we have a "year to mature".  It seems like one phase of this attempted "maturation" is to induce Catholics to swallow the heresy of modernism.  Watch Father Scalia below to learn more of this threat.

From The Maturation Department - Pope Francis Approved Interim Report Before Publication

Do you remember the disastrous Extraordinary Synod of the Family that was held last October?  You might recall that in the middle of it, an interim report was issued regarding the proceedings up to that point.  One would never know it was a Catholic document as it was full of heresy.  This post of mine links to the English translation that's on the Vatican website.  Here is some more immediate commentary.  You might just take a look at my posts during October 2014 (and the linked sites) for more details.

There had always been some question as to how much Pope Francis knew about that interim report when it was released to the public.  LifeSiteNews quotes from Aletia who was informed in an interview with Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri that the Pope knew the contents of the report and approved its publication.  The Cardinal stated, "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 [final report] were seen by him before they were published." (emphasis mine)

If that is the case, the Pope deliberately let heresy masquerade as a legitimate Church document.  Recall that this interim sin-nod report:

• talked of valuing homosexual orientation
• advocated to allow those living in adultery to receive Holy Communion
• blathered nonsense about the "positive aspects" of living in a homosexual relationship, i.e. mortal sin

Does this not put so many events of the past few months in a new light?  Events such as:

• Summary dismissal of Cardinal Burke, who spoke against the interim report and who had contributed to the book "Remaining In The Truth Of Christ"
• The private audience with the lesbians last week
• His "be like rabbits" crack
• His rebuke of the soon-to-be mother of eight

We do have the promise from Our Lord that His Vicar will never solemnly promulgate error.  However, there are many other ways that real harm can be done.  You might recall that the lesbians were emboldened by his "who am I to judge" crack.  And then there's the cop-out of "pastoral practice": the nonsense that dissident bishops use to disobey Canon 915, to neglect preaching on the evils of contraception.  All these "maturation" efforts (and there will be more to follow!) seem to be calculated to brainwash Catholics into accepting the thinking behind the interim report.  Even the way the report was released and the sin-nod conducted speak of a "ram-rod" effort to distort Church teaching in regards to marriage, sexuality and family.

I now link to a very worthwhile statement by the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy.  They state well Our Lord's teachings on these matters.

Final Relatio Synodi's Serious Errors

Yesterday LifeSiteNews published a piece in which Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that Pope Francis ordered the rejected paragraph on homosexuality to be published in the final SinNod report.  He is referring to the ones asking the Church to "learn to accept homosexual orientations".

Please see this link to the English translation of the final SinNod report; it is on the Vatican site.  I've read through this thing carefully; at least I think I did.  I do not see those paragraphs about "valuing the homosexual orientation" at all.  If I'm missing something, would a reader please be so kind as to cite the paragraph number?

It is quite possible that the heretical paragraphs are included in translations other than English. This example is not the only one in which the English translation differs from that of other translations.  Catholic Culture has an article stating that the Italian translation is quite different.  The difference is at the end of paragraph 4 of the introduction.  Notice that the English states "to discern how the Church and society can renew their commitment to the family."  Period.  However, the Italian version appends a significant phrase to the end of that sentence.  It reads "to the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman."  Rather telling, isn't it?  Catholic Culture, with tongue-in-cheek humor, quips that it's "an oversight".  Of course it isn't.  That was a deliberated omission, most likely done with the intention of muddying the true definition of marriage.  By the way - here's the Italian translation, again from the Vatican site.

Now here's the question of the hour.  Is there an English translation of the final "Relatio Synodi" that accurately reflects the original?  Obviously the one that's on the Vatican website leaves a lot to be desired.

From The Maturation Department - Another Reason Why Cdl Kasper Might Be In Town?

Call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe that Cardinal Kasper would take the time and trouble to fly across the Atlantic just to receive one bauble and make one speech at Catholic University of America on November 6 (see previous post).  It dawned on me just this morning that I should check out the precise dates of the USCCB's annual November meeting in nearby Baltimore.  Sure enough!  The scheduled dates are Nov 10 - 13, at the Marriott Waterfront in Baltimore (Inner Harbor area).

So Kasper's CUA appearance is the evening of Thursday the 6th.  The USCCB meeting starts the following Monday.  Will he be putting in an appearance at the meeting?  Here's the USCCB info about this meeting.  Am I the only one who finds this agenda to be rather curious for what's NOT on it?  Two weeks ago occurred one of the most controversial meetings in recent church history.  Yet the word "synod" is not to be found on the USCCB page that's dedicated to this meeting.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and opine that the SinNod most certainly will be discussed at the meeting that will start one week from tomorrow.  After all, there is only this meeting, with next summer's meeting, to browbeat faithful bishops "help" faithful bishops to "mature".  I also think that the main reason for Kasper's trip is to attend that meeting OR, at the very least, to drive some of the preparation for that meeting during the preceding weekend after his CUA appearance.  I understand that this CUA award is prestigious, but it cannot be so wondrous as to justify a transatlantic trip!

By the way - would Cardinal Burke be invited to this USCCB meeting?  I'd be pleasantly surprised if he was, but I think not.

English Version Of Relatio Is Finally Out - No Wonder The Heretics Tried To Delay It

I suppose they hoped that with passage of time, the interest of many Catholics might have waned.  Well, some of us do have attention spans longer than those of ants.  Recall that the synod fathers voted two weeks ago to remove particularly heretical paragraphs.  The announcement came that they would remain, with the vote counts next to each.  The votes appear at the bottom of the document.  I share Father Z's disappointment that we don't know who voted which way.  Why the big secret?

Well, that last part didn't happen on this English version from the website of the Vatican Press Office.  I see no tally; that absence gives the distinct (and I believe deliberated) impression that the heretical elements passed through the synod vote with flying colors.  You'll have to look closely, as it appears that the paragraph numbering was revamped.

One of the heretical suggestions is now paragraph 52, talking of giving divorced/remarried (e.g. adulterous) Catholics "access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist".  Later it goes into some blather about "penitential practice".  Here are some problems with this.  If one goes to Confession, they must confess all mortal sins; else they've just made a sacrilegious Confession, adding to their charge yet another mortal sin.  If they confess their adultery, proper contrition demands that they quit their adulterous situations, not remain in them.  Otherwise, they are not properly disposed to receive absolution.  Of course if they aren't properly absolved through a worthy Confession, they are in no way eligible to receive Holy Communion as they will still be in a state of mortal sin.  If we're going to talk about "penitential practice" there is absolutely no substitute for those that have been promulgated by the Church since her founding by Jesus Christ; anything else is an illusory pipe-dream, a false consolation that will probably lead to eternal perdition for those so duped into embracing it.

Paragraph 53 reiterates paragraph 52, with the difference being a focus on coddling the mortal sin of fornication as opposed to adultery.  Again, what's being proposed by this SinNod here is nothing short of spiritual poison inspired by the evil one.

Paragraphs 55 and 56 touch upon those who suffer from homosexual tendencies.  I am happy to see that the cr*p that extolled "sacrificial love" between two partners in sodomite sin was expunged.  Let us pray that it stays expunged. I am wary of some elements within the hierarchy.  In a saner time. that nonsense would never have been allowed to see the light of day, coming from the Vatican.

I don't know how this squares against other translations.  I do know that the Pope said, in the SinNod's closing address, that we have one year to "mature".  If that "maturation" means a return to understanding that we follow Jesus Christ and not the whims of the world, so be it.  But given the cabal that de facto wrote that interim relatio without regard for the other synod fathers, I rather doubt it.

Father Marcel Guarnizo Interviewed Regarding The Extraordinary Synod

Last week an online publication interviewed Father Marcel Guarnizo for his thoughts on the synod that had just concluded.  I have been permitted to publish it on this site.  Father Guarnizo has many excellent points to make of the synod and its ramifications for the future of the Church, drawing on Catholic theology and philosophy.

He voices many of the same concerns as do other Catholics.  Rather than try to rehash the interview here, I urge its study.  It is here in pdf format, meaning that you can download it to your own computers and perhaps circulate it electronically, either on your own blogs or Facebook, etc.

When We Must Respectfully Resist Vatican Progressives

Over the past year I have written many posts that express my concerns with this papacy.  Here is an archives of them; they do not appear in chronological order.  These concern are shared by many faithful Catholics, as evidenced on my right side-bar.

During the course of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family - which I dubbed the SinNod for the obvious attempts to normalize sodomy and adultery - we have seen the cause for our concerns multiplied exponentially.  I can think of no time in Church history when such a piece of heretical horse manure known as the interim relatio would ever have escaped the scrutiny of the sitting pontiff.  It did this time, and seems to have been engineered by the extra facilitators hand-picked by the Pope.  We stand in faith that the sitting pontiff will never solemnly proclaim error.  But in his lower-level statements and deeds, he would be well-positioned to wreck havoc upon the souls of millions nonetheless.

Some fellow bloggers brought to my attention an op-ed piece written by Ross Douthat called "The Pope And The Precipice".  I'd suggest a close reading and consideration.  He appears to be a faithful Catholic who is likewise concerned in the aftermath of this disastrous SinNod.   At the bottom, he suggests that the laity have a critical role to play in protecting the Pope from error and that will happen by resisting him in his errors.  I might prefer to state it as "resisting his errors" as opposed to resisting him as a person.

My friend at Tenth Crusade has written some excellent pieces in these past few days as another friend at Les Femmes and another blogger from Sensible Bond.  We are all sensing something horribly amiss about this papacy and its current trajectory.  If the degradation continues, we'll have to take steps to protect children and people we love from a garbled mess that can lead them to hell.

And now a word to those who persist in pretending that all is well with this papacy.  I love and respect you too much not to challenge you as you wear your rose-colored glasses and pretend that the pope walks on water in everything he says and does simply because he was elected pope.  I know there are those who think "the Holy Spirit chooses the pope".  That's not necessarily so, and that comes from none other than Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI; read from Father James Martin this quote from the Pope Emeritus along with a treatise on the process of papal election.  Some of you have taken exception to me and others as we've tried to sound the alarm.  Despite your tut-tutting, we will raise our voices for the sake of our loved ones and yes, for Holy Mother Church.  We truly hope you will open your eyes; else we will have to contradict you roundly.  We hope that won't be necessary, but that will be entirely up to you.  Let's stop the denial regarding this worsening train-wreck of a papacy.  Pray for Pope Francis, the clergy and all Christians.

Dignitatus Humanae Institute Clarifies Buzz Feed Interview With Cardinal Burke

From Aleteia we read that Dignitatus Humanae Institute, the organization that arranged Cardinal Burke's interview with Buzzfeed took the latter to task for rearrangement of words - a rearrangement that misquoted Cdl Burke as saying the "pope was harming the Church".

Rather, what Cardinal Burke said was "that in his opinion a general lack of clarity regarding the Pope’s position had caused harm to the Church."  In brief, he did not fault the Pope, but the "general lack of clarity" for harming the Church.  Buzz Feed has reprinted the entire text of the interview.  I appreciate Cardinal Burke's statement to set things right and to get his exact wording out there.  But now new questions are raised.

• Why, oh why, would there be any lack of clarity about the Pope's positions regarding divorced/remarried/adulterous relationships and sodomite situations?  The Magisterium has spoken on these things for 1000+ years.  Somehow I think that Pope Benedict XVI would have made his own positions crystal clear.
• Cardinal Burke asked the Pope to issue defense of the Church's teachings in light of the flim-flam that was called the interim relatio.  I do not believe that defense ever came.
• Let me elaborate on my previous sentence.  Here is the Pope's closing address.  In it, he states 
 "And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life."  That is not a definitive defense of the Church's teachings.  All he claimed here is that these teachings were not called into question during the SinNod; the interim relatio contradicts the Holy Father here.

So that little bit was cleared up.  Cardinal Burke did not attack the pope - as if I ever believed he did.  Will these other questions be answered?

Of New Things And Surprises And Diabolical Subtleties

A little note before I begin this post.  I will be expounding on these rather bizarre statements from the Pope, understanding of course that they are not spoken ex cathedra.  However, because there are some good-hearted people who think that every word he utters is a prophetic declaration or that it's just wonderful when he dons a clown nose for a silly selfie, there needs to be some input that is not derived from the "three monkeys" approach.  I'm pleased to note that many of my fellow bloggers seem similarly persuaded.  In fact, I shall be linking to them (as I often do).

Within the past several weeks Pope Francis has said some things that are perilously close to being logically, philosophically and theologically impossible.  These anomalies of thinking seem to be shared by prelates such as Cardinal Kasper, and their stench emanated from the SinNod.

On October 13, the Catholic Herald (UK) reported on the Pope's homily.  In that, he reportedly stated that "if laws do not lead people to Jesus they are obsolete".  It's obvious that he is confusing God's law with Pharisaical customs, for there is nothing inherently evil about eating with sinners (we all are sinners).  Why that distinction was not drawn is not so much careless, but now in light of the SinNod, somewhat suspect.  God's laws will never be obsolete.  They are His word, and as God Himself is eternal, so are His laws as they reflect His eternal will.

We certainly did see an attempt during the SinNod to question the eternity and relevance of God's laws, especially with the indissolubility of marriage and the gravity of the sins of sacrilegious Holy Communion and sodomy.  They are contained in those three paragraphs that should have been removed but in reality they still remain part of the report despite the votes of the prelates in attendance.

Regarding the fallacy of the law "not leading people to Jesus", recall that it's God's law that is indispensable to our discernment of Jesus in our lives and Church as opposed to some counterfeit.  Let's look at that statement again, rephrasing it ever so slightly.  "If laws do not lead people to Jesus, it's because that pseudo-lovely image of Jesus is a counterfeit.  God's authentic laws will never lead to anyone but Jesus."  With all due respect, I think this statement to be tad more accurate than the former.

In that article, we also heard about this "god of surprises", and he has been throwing that phrase at us ever since.  You'll notice that I did not capitalize that "g".  "God of surprises" is not a phrase that I've ever seen in the Scriptures nor in any other Church documents (I suppose that omission renders them "obsolete"?).  What is with this fetish about "being surprised"?  In the various contexts in which this phrase is bandied about (including the closing address of the SinNod), I suspect this "god of surprises" is not much more than a pagan idol designed to lure the naive into abandoning the One True Faith.

Let me share a particularly blasphemous manifestation of this "god of surprises", with thanks to Vox Cantoris.  Father Thomas Rosica, official of the Vatican Press Office and player in the SinNod, tried his best to make those in irregular marriages (that is, adultery) seem legitimate by opining that the Holy Family was "irregular"!  To suggest any hint of sin about the Holy Family is both intellectually insulting and blasphemous.  Is it, as the blogger suggests, part of the campaign for us to "mature", as said Pope Francis in his closing address?  Most likely so.  In saner times, Father Rosica would have been disciplined if not defrocked.  Now he'll probably be rewarded.

During the Mass during which Pope Paul VI was beatified, Pope Francis said repeatedly that "God is not afraid of new things".  There is truth to that statement - for several good reasons.  First, we read in Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 that "there is nothing new under the sun".  God is eternal.  His Word and Law is eternal.  Furthermore, we know that all public revelation has occurred and ended with the death of the last Apostle (John).  If there is any new "dogma" or tweaking of settled Church teaching, the impetus of such is utter foolishness at best and diabolical at worst.  Of course God can overcome all such duplicity; we weak humans need to exercise prudence and discernment.  Those two qualities must not be confused with fear and suggestions for such confusion must be rejected.

Let's face it.  This talk of "god of surprises" and "new things" is progressive manipulation of words to manipulate the Catholics into questioning the Magisterium and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, this time in regards to divorced/remarried Catholics and those embracing the sin of sodomy.  Even now they are preparing in earnest for next year's ordinary synod, where they hope that they will be more successful in undermining the Faith.

Three Offensive Paragraphs To Remain In The Final Report

In my post that showed in the wee hours of this morning, I mentioned that Rorate Caeli had reason to believe that the three paragraphs of the interim report that were voted out of the final report were still going to remain.  I just learned that Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register has reported the same thing.

Father Federico Lombardi stated (according to the Register) that the three paragraphs "are not completely rejected.  They cannot be considered an expression of synodal consensus”, he said, but rather show a “work in progress” and areas that “still have a ways to go.”

"Not completely rejected"?  If not, what was the purpose of the vote?  Was that voting exercise just another part of the "dog and pony show" of the SinNod, so it was ok to disregard the obvious rejection of the three paragraphs?

"Work in progress" and "still have a ways to go"?  What does that mean?  Does it mean that the paragraphs remain so that Catholics can be deceived into thinking that settled moral doctrine is fair game for debate and attempts to change it?  If not, what can be the reason for keeping the rejected paragraphs in the report?

Those three paragraphs are by no means examples of "surprises of God" but merely the machinations of those bent on the destruction of Holy Mother Church and the damnation of countless souls who will be hapless enough to be deceived by the wolves who are masquerading as shepherds.

I would recommend to you that you read this article by Sandro Magister on "The True Story Of This Synod, Directors, Performers, Assistants".  You can see the machinations have been going on for some time.  Both Machiavelli and Alinsky would be proud of them.  They are NOT going to give up their schemes to bastardize the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  Anyone who thinks this final report represents a victory for faithful Catholics really need to step out of their bubbles and take off the rose-colored glasses for we are in for a long struggle here.

In my previous post I gave a nod to Saul Alinsky, for all of this is right out of his playbook.  However, this post's nod will go to Nancy Pelosi for she coined the term "we have to pass it to find out what's in it."  It seems rather appropriate for the dissidents are determined to get that theological and spiritual poison into the hearts and minds of Catholics by whatever means they can, be those means ever so unethical.

SinNod's Grande Finale - Part 1 Of 2

I will comment in two parts, as two documents were released today: 1) Pope Francis' speech at the conclusion and 2) the final relatio synodi

Here is the text of the Pope's remarks as they appear on the Vatican website.  Please read over; you might want to have the page open in another browser window as I go through this.

First he thanks a lot of folks; that's nice.  There are some notable "players" at the SinNod who received no mention.  We see no gratitude expressed for Cardinal Kasper; in the light of the African quip and his subsequent lie about the interview, I can understand this omission.  Likewise we saw no thanks for Cardinals Burke, Pell, Muller and Napier.  These Princes of the Church aired some dirty laundry in that SinNod (as did Michael Voris) and helped provide some impetus to regularizing SinNod proceedings.

Then we hear about some "temptations".  Here is the first, and I'll quote the Holy Father verbatim.  I'll post it twice: one with no edits and the second with my comments interspersed.

Original quote
One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

With my comments in red
One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, What is the "written word" if not Sacred Scripture and Tradition, along with Church laws derived from Scripture and Tradition with the Church's teaching authority? (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, If any purported "surprise of God" contradicts the aforementioned "written word" we may rest assured that any such "surprise" is not of God. by the God of surprises, "God of surprises"!  Where, oh where do we find that title in either Scripture or the history of the Church? (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.  As one Facebook commenter quipped, the real issue is the "Church hierarchy surprises".  They are not to be confused with any movement of God.  Thus paragraphs 50-53 are "surprises" that were demonic; we knew that for they defied the "written word".  There is no dichotomy whatsoever between God's work and His Written Word.  This is not the first time this false dichotomy has been proposed.  Regrettably it probably won't be the last.

Moving along we see " I have seen and I have heard – with joy and appreciation – speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parresia."  That's nice!  Please share that joy!  Let us know who said what for all the speeches and interventions - as was common practice for synods until two weeks ago!

I'll end with this whopper.  "And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life."  Excuse me!  Look at the interim report - particularly paragraphs 50-53!  Fundamental truths of marriage were most certainly contradicted in that report.  Now this is a stretch, but the only way that statement could be ever so slightly correct is if gay lifestyles were indeed not discussed on the floor and these paragraphs were surreptitiously added to the report, as Cardinal Napier suggested.  I will address these paragraphs in the "part 2" post.

Some well-meaning people are waxing ecstatic about this phrase, claiming that the Pope is formally upholding Catholic teaching on marriage, per the challenges put forth by Cardinals Burke and Pell.  No, this is not a formal statement upholding these teachings.  All it claims is that the teachings were not flouted during the SinNod - and even that might be (ahem!) incorrect.

With The Ouster Of Cdl Burke And Misconduct Of SinNod, The "Lovable" Mask Comes Off Pope Francis

No longer can any thinking, alert Catholic believe that Pope Francis is an affable "good ole boy" who likes to live simply and put clown noses on his face for silly selfies.  It is becoming painfully obvious that he is quite skilled in Machiavellian and Alinskyan tactics for advancing his agenda.  These skills have been displayed all too well at this SinNod.

A few days ago, after the release of the interim relatio, Cardinal Burke publicly urged - challenged - the Pope to defend unambiguously the teachings of the Church regarding marriage.  It should be emphasized that these teachings are those of Jesus Christ Himself.  Yesterday Cardinal Pell echoed that challenge.  However, it does seem that the agenda of the SinNod was planned well in advance - and that the relatio may have been written before the SinNod convened!

California Catholic Daily goes into detail about the planned short-comings of the SinNod:

• The prohibition against the publication of bishops' statements, unheard of in any other such gathering
• No mention of chastity or pursuit of holiness
• Over-emphasis on divorced/remarried issues to the exclusion of others (pornography, polygamy in Africa, etc)
• An obvious deference to the opinions of the secular world as to what constitutes "mercy"

Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany appears to be the "front man" for the Vatican apparatus that is pushing for doctrinal changes in regards to distributing Holy Communion to de facto adulterers.  There is much information about Kasper and his thinking; I won't delve into it here lest I digress from the main points of this post, but I do urge all to read it. 

I will also link to a National Catholic Register article by Edward Pentin (the same who caught Kasper in a lie regarding his African quip).  The evidence he cites, plus other points cited by others and me (review my postings from this past week) during the past few days, indicates that this SinNod is not much more than an engineered "dog and pony show" conducted to give cover to the advancement of a diabolical agenda masterminded by a select few.  If true, we can only conclude that Pope Francis is one of those select few.  If this isn't Machiavellian and Alinskyan, I don't know what is.

Pope Francis has yet to answer the challenges of Cardinals Burke and Pell for defense of the Church's teachings on families.  Cardinal Burke had some words to say on this, stating that "the Pope has done a lot of harm by not saying openly what his position is", and that the "synod was designed to change Church teaching".  Both Buzz Feed and Rorate Caeli have accounts of this interview today.  In this same interview, His Eminence confirmed that he has been ousted from the Apostolic Signatura.

Some might think my words regarding Pope Francis to be rather caustic. But look at the events of the past few days and consider that they could not have happened without permission from the Pope.  I regret to say that his refusal to affirm Church teaching regarding the divorced/remarried seems to be a glaring signal of things to come.

I close now with a Vortex that was done just after Voris et al got word of the Cardinal's interview.

SinNod's Interim Report And Its Shady Circumstances

Today's Vortex Report from Rome is aptly entitled "Document-Gate".  Voris reiterates some facts abut the document.  I'll interject my own comments.

• It was released to the press before most of the bishops at the SinNod received a copy.  I think it's worth noting, too, that the publication of the document on the Vatican website coincided with the release to the press.  Whoever (probably several people) released it to the press had some collusion with those who published it on the Vatican site.
• According to Cardinal Napier, topics in the document were hardly discussed at all during the SinNod proceedings.  Who inserted them?  Was that the work of the six additional committee members hand-picked by the Pope?  Father Zuhlsdorf has an account of behind-the-scenes occurrences at the SinNod.
• Paragraphs 50-53, those that openly condone sodomy, seem to be the handiwork of Archbishop Bruno Forte.  By the way - Father Paul Check, international director of Courage, made known his disapproval, citing concerns for those struggling homosexuals whom Courage tries to assist as they live according to Church teaching.
• At 6:11, Voris asked who collected the information, who wrote the document, who published the document, who distributed the document to journalists before the bishops saw it.  I think we can safely hypothesize that those six prelates (including Cardinal Wuerl), handpicked by the Pope, facilitated that process.  As far as I'm concerned, this has papal paw prints all over it.  Voris mentions that Vatican official Father Federico Lombardi and Father Thomas Rosica stonewalled him when he asked his questions.  Father Lombardi is director of the Vatican Press Office.  It is on the site of that office that the document appeared when first released to the press.  Father Rosica is also with that office.
• Voris asks was the leak planned, with the hopes that the secular media would react as it did?  We know the key players enough to opine "yes".
• He makes the excellent point that those who insist that "this is only a working document", "don't worry, be happy" crowd are engaging in dangerous and dare I say ungodly naivete.

Voris reminded us that Cardinal Burke has publicly called upon the pope to publicly proclaim that no teaching will change.  Cardinal Pell now echoes the same call.  As of the time of this writing, I've heard no word that the Pope has issued any such declarative statement.  Will he?

SinNod Full Of Satan's Smoke, Perhaps Irreparably

Surely the diabolical relatio that was released a few days ago should have removed any doubts of that.  But if one still refuses to remove their rose-colored glasses, take a gander at the arrogance of Cardinal Kasper, one of the fomenters of the demonic proceedings.  In an interview with Zenit earlier today, he opined that a "growing majority" in the SinNod are in favor of divorced and civilly-remarried Catholics (translation of gobblygook - Catholics living in the mortal sin of adultery).  He also admitted that in the SinNod, the imput of African bishops regarding homosexuality is ignored.  Now just think!  If a conservative-leaning prelate had the audacity to say that input from African bishops about any topic was ignored, the mainstream media would be waxing apoplectic over the matter with indignant cries of "racism!" and such being hurled hither and yon.  Have you heard any such outcry in the wake of Kasper's arrogance?  Neither have I.

However, some prelates are having nothing to do with Kasper's cheap tricks.  Many of them have denounced the relatio, with Cardinal Muller calling it "shameful, undignified and completely wrong".  Others joining him include Cardinals Burke, Oullet and Dolan (good for him on this moment of lucidity!). 

There are some who still deny the obvious work of satan through his minions in the SinNod, choosing to trot out the "bad translation" canard.  Oh, please!  This "faulty translation" excuse got old some time ago - bad translation of interviews, etc.  Sheesh!  How did the previous pontiffs ever get by without 10% of the "translation issues" that are the favorite excuses of this papacy?  Moreover, my readers know that I linked to the relatio on the Vatican website.  The Vatican, right up to the pope, owns the English translation - no excuses!

I now post today's installment from the Vortex's reports on the events of the SinNod.  He reiterates Cardinal Burke's challenge to the Pope to clearly defend traditional Church teaching regarding marriage and family life.  Whether he does so or not will clearly indicate the Pope's mindset on these crucial matters.

Faithful Catholics Wax Indignant At The SinNod's Interim Report

G. K. Chesterton once said "If the world grows to wordly, it can be expected to be rebuked by the Church; but if the Church becomes too worldly, It can be hardly expected to be rebuked by the world."  No, it can't, and these days it isn't.  On the heels of yesterday's disastrous relatio (due in part to the stacked committee engineered by the pope), the Human Rights Campaign released this

They are rejoicing and gloating over what seems to be transpiring at this SinNod.  They seem to have solid basis for their jubilation.

Many of us understand the trouble that document signals for the Church.  We bloggers made known our concerns yesterday, particularly with those passages that condone homosexual behaviors.  Today's Vortex shows Voris interviewing a panel of the clergy, including Archbishop Bruno Forte, whom many believe was instrumental in the writing of paragraphs 50-53.  I'll post the video now and below that, I'll have more news.



Cardinal Burke sharply criticized the document, stating that it's a "betrayal" that "faithful shepherds cannot accept".  He called upon Pope Francis to issue a statement defending true Catholic teaching on the various topics that were mangled in the relatio.  Bishop Rogelio Livieres also has some well-founded criticism of proceedings.  Cardinal Muller had some pointed language for the thing.

There is something else to consider, and I thank Chris Ferrera for pointing this out.  Yesterday, the date of the release of this relatio, was the anniversary of some key Divine interventions.  It was on this day that Pope Leo XIII had his vision of satan attacking the Church, prompting him to compose some remedial prayers to be prayed after every Mass; these prayers are called the Leonine prayers.  They were scuttled after Vatican II, although noting in the council documents so directed their abandonment.

It was also the 97th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima.  To the three children Our Lady made plain that we must pray and repent else we will be judged.  Did we see some stark sign of that judgment issue forth from the Vatican?  I believe we did.

As we read the comments of Ferrara's piece, a reader points out another anniversary: that of Our Lady at Akita, where she warns of bishops being set against each other, and a strong exhortation to be faithful to the daily Rosary.  None of this is a coincidence.

SinNod Interim Report Soft-Pedals Mortal Sin To The Eternal Detriment Of The Sinners

Today the Interim Report from the SinNod was released.  Here is the English translation from the Vatican Press Office.   By the way - I've taken the precaution of saving this thing to my own computer, just in case it "disappears" (ahem!).  I'd suggest others do the same.  Quite frankly, it is a friggin' disaster and portends God's judgment if the current course of the SinNod doesn't turn around.  Please have this document open in another window as I'll be working my way through it; I'd rather not "copy/paste" passages; otherwise this post will become too voluminous and bulky.

We look at paragraph 20, where "irregular situations" are discussed.  These includes those living together without benefit of marriage, those married civilly and those divorced and subsequently married civilly.  Let me call these what they really are: the first two are the sin of fornication and the third is the sin of adultery.  Both are mortal sins.  In order for one to be culpable of mortal sin, three elements must be present: 1) grave matter, which these situations obviously are, 2) full knowledge of their sinfulness (given the dismal state of catechesis, this knowledge isn't always present and 3) acting on this sin with full knowledge of sin and disregard of the same.

The paragraph talks of these objectively sinful situations and "the positive values the contain".  I posit that any "positive value" is far outweighed by the danger of damnation to those participating in these relationships.  Nowhere in this discussion do I see any reference to the eternal destinies of those engaged in these mortally sinful situations, nor do I see any mention of the need for repentance and Confession.

As you work your way down, notice paragraphs 47 and 48.  They deal with persons who are divorced from their first spouses and who are civilly remarried without obtaining a Church annulment.  Paragraph 47 starts by saying "as regards the possibility of partaking in the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist".  It sounds laudable, but only if the Sacrament of Penance includes the cessation of de facto adultery; else there is the issue of a sacrilegious confession.  Likewise, reception of the Eucharist in such a state would be yet another sacrilege.  There are those clergy who think themselves as being "merciful" for their prattle of condoning these unworthy reception of the sacraments.  In fact, such false mercy would be an act of unspeakable cruelty, as these clergy - wolves in sheeps' clothing - would in fact be facilitating yet more mortal sin upon the souls of those in their charge.

Now move along to paragraphs 50 - 52, dealing with homosexual persons.  Paragraph 50 urges Catholics, in regard to the homosexual to "value their sexual orientation".  Let me say this right now and I mean every word of this.  That statement in paragraph 50 is pure satanic pig-slop!  Church teaching has always declared the homosexual orientation to be intrinsically disordered.  There is nothing - NOTHING! - to value about an intrinsically disordered orientation that, if followed, will lead to heartbreak on earth and hellfire for eternity.  Will these faux-clergy soon be talking about valuing the "orientation" of a child-rapist, or a binge-drinker?  How about the "orientation" of serial shop-lifters?

The seduction to mortal sin continues in paragraph 52, as it erroneously states, "there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners".  I almost don't know where to begin.  Real aid would entail the accomplices in sin to separate and cease their perversion.  As it is, this so-called "precious support" is really the two accomplices blinding each other as they mutually push each other towards eternal damnation.  The gay person who claims to be loving his/her partner deceives only him/herself, as their sin condemns not only them, but the one whom they purport to "love".  Their very dalliances point not to authentic charity but to a reckless disregard for the spiritual well-being of their "partners".   Why we see this self-deception affirmed in this SinNod is impossible to discern, unless it is a pandering to the gay elements within the Vatican itself.

Speaking of authentic ministry to homosexual persons, were any representatives from the excellent Catholic apostolate called "Courage" invited?  I have heard no mention of them.  Perhaps they too, like the JP II Institute for Marriage and Family, were ostracized because of their fidelity to the Magisterium.

I am so glad this document is relatively short, for it contained way too much spiritual poison as it is.  Here is commentary offered by LifeSiteNews.  Voice of the Family has called this report "a betrayal". I concur.

I'll close this now with today's Vortex report coming from the Vatican.  Voris, in commenting on the "openness" of the Vatican, quipped that the Obama administration is more transparent than this SinNod.  He also asked a number of questions about conflicting messages from the SinNod.  I can only surmise he recorded this before this interim report was released for this report, if nothing else, made plain the nefarious direction of this SinNod.