Fellow Faithful Catholics, The Sin-Nod Was A Disaster

That so many faithful Catholics are grasping at straws right now can be readily understood.  For decades now we've seen the Teachings of Jesus Christ not only attacked by secular society but undermined from within by progressive clerics of the Judas mold.  While we've been fearing a massive plop of heresy to spew forth from the sin-nod, it hasn't happened to the degree to which we expected.  But therein may lie the danger, for where overt evil might be rejected precisely because it is recognizable, evil camouflaged in subtle and ambiguous language can more easily insinuate itself into the minds of those who are all too ready to embrace simplistic appearances of good.

Think of it.  Faithful Catholics are waxing jubilant and ready to break out the bubbly because a Catholic document wasn't chock full of overt heresy!  Moreover, they are calling upon others to don rose-colored glasses and join them in pollyanna-type fantasies.  Take a look at my blog roll to the right; you'll see some of them.  Now these sites are on my blog role precisely because I hold them in respect - but on this occasion they're swilling down some dangerous koolaid.

All that demonstrates is how far we've fallen as a Church, when we rejoice because a Church document "isn't that bad".  Ladies and gentlemen, consider that the matters that were discussed during the sin-nod should never have been on the table precisely because they were stated clearly by God and acknowledged by the Church two thousand years ago.  To add insult to injury, some of the votes were fairly close.  In a saner time, any deviation from God's revealed word would have been unanimously and unceremoniously rejected.

As I stated yesterday, Rorate has commenced some analysis of the relatio.  It bodes ill for the Church.  Moreover, I link now to a LifeSiteNews piece penned by Andrew Guernsey.  In it he points out the attempts to tinker with language that has been used by the Church to describe intrinsic evils.  Anyone with a smidgen of common sense knows that the manipulation of language is an attempt to manipulate the thought processes of the audience.  One of the "offending phrases" that the sin-nod culprits want to eliminate is the phrase "intrinsic evil".  As Guernsey points out, this puts into context the Pope's concluding address yesterday in which he openly disdained "language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible".

I'll post below a video in which Michael Matt gives more insight as to what happened these past few weeks.  I will ask that my fellow bloggers throw off their rose-colored glasses and realize that the battle is still underway.  The sin-nod laid the groundwork for progressives to soldier forward with their plans at deconstruction of the Church.  Look out for phrases such as "spirit of the synod".  Keep praying, stay vigilant, vocal, and active.

Pope's Closing Address For SinNod - Vindictive And Sloppy

Here is the text of the thing from the Vatican website.  Please read the entire thing.  I'll address salient points.

"It was about bearing witness to everyone that, for the Church, the Gospel continues to be a vital source of eternal newness, against all those who would indoctrinate it in dead stones to be hurled at others."  A few things pop into mind:

• The phrase "eternal newness" is an oxymoron, for eternity by definition is neither old nor new.  It is beyond the bounds of time.  The truths of God revealed thousands of years ago continue to be the truths of God for they were uttered by the eternal God.
• "Indoctrinate" what?  Is this just sloppy translation?  How does one "indoctrinate the Gospel into stone"?  This is nonsensical
• Just who are these evil boogeymen that are hurling "dead stones" at people? And why, oh why, does the pope refer to the Gospel as "dead stones"?  Again, if there's a better translation, please advise the Vatican for I'm looking at their own website.

"It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God, and to transmit the beauty of Christian Newness, at times encrusted in a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible."

• There's that "newness" word again.  "Newness" is irrelevant when talking of God's timeless truths.
• "Conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints!"  Now here's where the "lovable" mask drops off and we see the real vindictiveness.  Of course some of that venom is aimed at Catholic bloggers such as Yours Truly.  But I believe faithful prelates who vocally called out the obvious rigging of the sin-nod are in the cross-hairs: prelates such as Cardinal Sarah, Archbishop Gadecki, Bishop Schneider, the thirteen cardinals who signed the letter, those who wrote "Remaining In The Truth Of Christ" and "Preferential Option For The Family", and others.  Voice of the Family just released a piece asking the pope to address the crisis of trust; do you think this "conspiracy theory" slur will help?
• What is meant by "language which is archaic"?  If Latin, may I remind us all of why Latin is used?  It is used precisely because it is a dead language; that is, the meanings of its grammar and vocabulary will not "evolve" with time.  Latin has worked well for the Church for 2000 years; there's no reason to pretend that it isn't sufficient now.  I realize that may not fit in with this "newness" fad, but so what?
• Let's look at the "incomprehensible" part.  Another reason why certain language may seem "incomprehensible" to certain individuals is precisely because they don't want to understand it; they don't like the demands it places on them and their behaviors.  Any parent who's raised children will understand the concept.  The answer is NOT to change the language but to continue to proclaim the teaching and insist on obedience for the eternal salvation of these recalcitrant individuals.

"We have also seen that what seems normal for a bishop on one continent, is considered strange and almost scandalous for a bishop from another; what is considered a violation of a right in one society is an evident and inviolable rule in another; what for some is freedom of conscience is for others simply confusion."

• Examples?
• God's truths are not only eternal, they are omnipresent.  That is, they apply everywhere and equally.  Marriage, being between one biologically born man and one biologically born woman, is one such truth.

"The Synod experience also made us better realize that the true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit; not ideas but people; not formulae but the gratuitousness of God’s love and forgiveness."

• "true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit".  No.  Enough of these false dichotomies.  When it comes to God's word, "letter" and "spirit" CANNOT be held in opposition to one another for they both emanate from the same God.  One does not uphold any "spirit" of God's word without upholding every single solitary letter of it.  Got that???

There are more problems with this but I think you get the gist.  The Relatio is out already, but so far only in Italian (again, why not Latin?).  Rorate has some of that translated and even that small snippet is fraught with serious problems, not the least is the "wiggle room" being implied regarding the matter of adulterers receiving Holy Communion while still in sin.  At best, it sounds like a time bomb that will explode at the most inopportune time.  Please pray; frequent the Sacraments, pray the Rosary, wear the scapulars.  We are in for some difficult times as Catholics.

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.