Will it matter in the slightest that the large majority of Synod bishops oppose Communion for adulterers? October 20, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
Rorate is reporting that some anonymous source is claiming that the large majority of Synod fathers are opposed to using Communion as a reward for very bad behavior – that is, handing Our Lord in the flesh out like a prize to those who sin in adulterous second “marriages” while still having a valid first one. I am utterly convinced the primary reason this heretical proposal has made it as far as it has is because of complete lack of faith in the Real Presence. That is why men like Cardinal John Dew and Archbishop Coleridge just can’t understand what all the fuss is about (quote from Coleridge’s private blog):
Whatever about the press conference itself, the big surprise for me has been the ferocious reaction in some quarters to what I regard as my quite moderate remarks. [OK, so here I stop and include the remarks in question:]
The Church has traditionally spoken that the second union is adulterous and I understand why. I understand the teaching and what lies behind it, including the biblical background. But at the same time, not every case is the same and that’s where a pastoral approach needs to take account of the different situations. For instance, just to say that every second marriage or second union whatever you want to call it is adulterous, is perhaps too sweeping.[So, then, you reject the direct command of Our Lord, that what God has joined together, let no man sunder? You acknowledge the hardness of your own heart in your desire to allow for Catholic divorce, just as the hard-hearted Jews of the old covenant had it? Who, precisely, is the Pharisee here? According to Jesus Christ, it is Archbishop Coleridge] For instance, a second marriage that is enduring and stable and loving and where there are children who are cared for is not the same as a couple skulking off to a hotel room for a wicked weekend.[Or maybe the second union started with some of that skulking. Maybe there is a bereaved wife with children home all by herself, or a grieving husband abandoned by his wife? But all this is just an argument designed to trigger emotions of sympathy while ignoring the evisceration of Doctrine it would entail.] So the rubric, adultery, in one sense, it’s important but in another sense it doesn’t say enough and I think what a pastoral approach requires is that we actually enter into what the synod is calling a genuine pastoral dialogue or discernment with these couples and the start of that is for people like me to actually listen to their story not just swamp them with doctrine or Church teaching. [Translation: treading on appeals to emotion, divorce will be regularized pastorally in the Catholic Church, and Doctrine will be eviscerated. Of course, we’ll dress it up in pretty language designed to deceive and pretend we haven’t changed anything, but the Doctrine – and the 2000 year old institution – will be destroyed in the process. And then we shall be lionized by the press, feted by liberal politicians, and enjoy delusions of being players possessed of “influence.” That the Church will all but collapse and millions of souls will fall away is a small price to pay for these kinds of perks!]
Twitter has been frothing with invective, which shows what’s out there – by which I mean the fear, even the panic this Synod seems to have provoked in some. That sort of thing doesn’t look like the Holy Spirit to me – red-eyed joylessness cannot be of God. [“And He took some cords, and made a whip of them, and drove the moneychangers from the temple.”] The impression is that, if you touch the slightest jot or tittle not so much of what the Church teaches but of what her pastoral practice has been or how her truth has been expressed, then the whole edifice built up over 2000 years will come tumbling down. [Well, you’ve told us for 50 years that VII did not change Doctrine at all, just some “small details” of practice, and look how the Church has been in free-fall since. The think about those of us who hold such fears, we have all the evidence of history on our side, inside and outside the Church, whereas all you have are denial of the facts] If I believed that, I’d be panicking too and hurling lemon-lipped diatribes this way and that. But I don’t believe it and therefore find myself trusting in the path that’s opening [by whom? The Holy Ghost? Where was this almighty papal positivism in the previous two pontificates?!? You do realize, Archbishop Coleridge, that you are pitting Christ against Himself, putting the Church of the past against whatever construct you and your modernist allies envision? After you are done, and the changes are apparent for all to see, what will keep millions from concluding that any Church that can change its sacred practice and belief after 2000 years of fighting for it cannot be truthful and worthy of following?] before us, with the abuse rolling like water off a duck’s back. Voices of fear, even panic, have also been heard in the Synod Hall and the small groups, but what’s clearer to me now is that those voices within have strong links to similar voices without. It’s also clear that those voices, clinging desperately to some imagined or ideologised past, cannot point the way into the future. History will have its way, however much we try to cling to illusions of timelessness.
(…) [Shorter Coleridge: “I’m a leftist, and I will have my leftist way. We’ve got the whip hand now, and we’re going to implement our heresies and errors come hell or high water, and we’ll enjoy beating the tar out of the faithful who oppose us in the process.”]
Once we’ve done our work, it goes to the 10-man commission who are writing the final document. They’ve been hard at it, dealing with the first two parts of the working document. Cardinal John Dew told me that they were huddled over the work yesterday afternoon and into the room unannounced walked Pope Francis – like the Risen Lord, [Oh come on!] though not (I think) walking through a locked door. He simply wished them well in the work and urged them to give him a good document. They promised to try. Another moment of the Pope of surprises. Let’s hope for some surprises from the final document.
The reason why I am entirely skeptical that even the most vehement opposition from the Synod’s bishops, even a near-total majority opposed to any and all of these radical changes, will have virtually no influence on the final document is revealed in the above. The 10 man commission consists almost entirely of the most radical progressive allies of Pope Francis. It consists of men who have used skullduggery and naked power grabs in the past. It is closely associated with the cabal that got Francis (illicitly?) elected. And as Coleridge boldly proclaims, it is already producing the “final document” even before the formal reports of the language groups have been produced! The first came out today!
Couple that knowledge with the speech Pope Francis gave on Saturday – the speech that sent cold shivers down the spines of every even somewhat orthodox Catholic in the world (and especially among a large number of bishops and cardinals), and you have the makings for the apotheosis of papal positivism and post-conciliar cults of personality – the most authoritarian Pope since the Borgias claiming “collegiality” to ram unprecedented, almost impossible to overcome doctrinal devolution down the throats of a shocked and stunned Church:
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. [By a long shot. The left would have lost their minds had he ever done so] It means: I call the shots. In the end, you listen to me, not the other way around. [thus, the reality of progressive “collegiality,” “lay empowerment,” and all the rest. In the end, it’s all about power, for them]
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?
Meaning there is a very strong possibility the Pope will claim that because most Catholics reject Catholic Doctrine on one level or another, that Doctrine is somehow false, and must be changed to suit the “sensus fidei” of the most sinful, most obdurate, least well-formed Catholics. Meaning, permanent doctrinal revolution, the instillation of the modernist ethos so deeply into the Church getting rid of it will be the work of centuries. Note that modernists have claimed for decades that rejection of Doctrine by so-called Catholics indicated that Doctrine must change. Of course, many have rejected that Doctrine because they’ve never been taught the whys and wherefores of it from the vast majority of priests and bishops.
Think in how far out these developments are. Most bishops are not what one would call super-orthodox. They are not strong adherents to the immutable Tradition. Most are thoroughly post-conciliar and possessed of at least some modernist sensibilities. And yet even THEY are vehemently opposed to what is being proposed. I think that reveals just how far out what’s being aimed at by Coleridge, Dew, Baldiserri, Forte, Wuerhl, et. al., really is. And that’s why I think no matter what the Synod bishops say, it makes no difference: it all comes down to the will of one man.
This is a plan of decades, likely centuries coming to fruition. This is the Alta Vendita on steroids. It is very bad news for all of us. Even having to DISCUSS this as a future possibility gravely wounds the Church. And it is all, so obviously, flowing from one man.