Why Should the Synod Fathers Walk Out?

There is a movement afoot to encourage orthodox Catholic bishops to walk out of the Synod on the Family before its conclusion.  Steve Skojec summarizes the reasoning behind it and thereby sets forth a good catalogue of reasons conservative Catholics are concerned about this Synod.

I concur but will not repeat his work . . . except that I do find Pope Francis’ choice of a certain Cardinal to play a prominent role at this Synod particularly . . . noteworthy:

Cardinal Godfried Daneels, who, in addition to having advocated for same-sex marriage and legalized abortion, has been implicated in silencing clerical sex abuse victims in Belgium – with one notable instance caught on tape. He is also a participant in the so-called “St. Gallen Mafia,” a cabal of prelates who worked in secret against Pope Benedict and wanted to see Cardinal Bergoglio elected to modernize the Church.

Damian Thompson has certainly taken note, including this:

At the launch of his authorised biography in Brussels last month, Danneels claimed to have been part of a ‘mafia club’ of senior cardinals opposed to Benedict XVI who wanted to ensure that a liberal pope succeeded Benedict XVI. Jorge Bergoglio was their favourite candidate. Perhaps we shouldn’t read too much in to this – the papacy was hardly in the club’s gift. But when I asked a senior Vatican source this week why Francis had invited Danneels to the synod – on the face of it, a grotesquely inappropriate move – he replied: “As a thank-you for the votes he helped deliver.”

I will restrain myself from saying more for now.  But I can smell “the smoke of Satan” from this Synod – and from the Vatican – all the way from Texas.

Catholics Have Reason to Be Concerned About the Synod on the Family

Although not papist myself, I’ve long thought I have more in common with orthodox Romans than with Liberal “mainline” Protestants – much more.  And I note and share conservative Catholic concern about Pope Francis’ Synod on the Family.

In the next three weeks, I fully expect the leadership of my own One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church to fall into apostasy, at the conclusion of the Synod on the Family that begins today in Rome. This is the outcome Pope Francis has shaped over the entirety of his pontificate, and particularly with his recent appointments. An event like this —heresy promulgated by the Pope and his bishops — is believed by most Catholics to be impossible. But they should be prepared for it anyway. This is not an ordinary religious conference, but one to be dreaded.

My prediction is that, after much fixing and machinations by its leaders, the Synod on the Family will declare that the Holy Spirit led them to a new understanding of the truth. The Synod’s leaders will adopt the position that those living in second marriages, irrespective of the status of their first marriage, should be admitted to Holy Communion. This is commonly called the “Kasper proposal” after its author, the German Cardinal Walter Kasper. The Synod will likely leave the details of a “penitential period of reflection” for these souls up to local bishops and parish priests The leading bishops will assure critics that in fact no doctrine has been changed, only a discipline — even if these will make no sense when considered together.

Certain theologians will cheer this as a radical break. They will declare this change of discipline to be what the critics alleged all along: a rupture within the tradition of the church, a change in doctrine. They will say that this glorious event proves the church is capable not only of developing its doctrines, but also of evolving them into something new, even something that contradicts the old. Those who had made themselves enemies of papal authority for decades will become a new kind of ultramontanist. The papacy that had been the final guardian of the faith will now become an ongoing oracle, dispensing new gospel teachings that our Lord and the Apostles missed.

The church’s teachings on contraception, homosexuality, and pre-marital sex must all be subjected to this evolution, in light of what we know about how people actually live. How they ought to live is a moot question.

That is alarmist perhaps.  But after watching Francis, I think it not unrealistic.

Two matters about Synod that should concern (And trust me that this is for starters.):

1. Francis’ insistence that bishops should be able to keep their interventions in Synod secret, which of course greatly undermines accountability.  There has already been a notorious example of this from Synod:

The actual interventions that take place on the synod floor are not made available to the public, by the will of the Holy Father. However, Archbishop Gadecki heroically took notes on the interventions made by the synod fathers, and actually made them public on his blog here. They were quickly taken down at the behest of Cardinal Baldisseri. Fortunately, copies of these interventions were saved and thanks to the work of Archbishop Gadecki, we know what kind of evil is taking place behind closed doors. Case in point, one intervention made by Cardinal Lacunza Maestrojuan suggested that the church should return to the Law of Moses on the matter of divorce and remarriage, which naturally implies the words of Christ on this matter should be abandoned.

Rorate Caeli, which is following Synod closely, has provided more detail on this silencing.

The Venerable Fr. John Hunwicke notes and notes well that this secrecy of Synod is the will of Francis and is completely out of line with scripture and tradition and with reason for that matter:

A bishop is not a distinguished individual; he is episcopus in et cum Ecclesia sua. Episcopacy is not a personal fashion accessory. I can think of few things more disgracefully clericalist, more ecclesiologically corrupt, than bishops meeting privately "in a protected space" in which they believe themselves free to stitch together something which might not be according to the traditam per Apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum; and to do this without any element of the discipline and responsibility which comes from it being publicly known what each has said. Have their diocesan priests, deacons, and layfolk no rights whatsoever? Is Episcopacy simply a matter of lording it over the flock of Christ (I Peter 5:3) without oneself being answerable to the plebs sancta Dei? I am reminded of what an English poet called Kipling once said to an English Press Baron called Beaverbrook: "Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages".

Fr. Hunwicke’s entire post on this matter merits reading.

2.  Pope Francis is more than willing to rig Synod.

Some has said that there is no way the conservative bishops attending Synod will allow serious error to come out of it.  (Which begs the question of how Francis got elected Pope, but anyway.) The problem is Francis is not above rigging matters, not at all.  Heck, he reminds me of Harry Reid.

At the end of 2014, there was a major controversy when the Holy Father allowed from various controversial paragraphs to remain in the 2014 Relatio Synodi document, to be used as a basis for the 2015 synod (in a document called Instrumentum Laboris), even though they didn’t receive the required two-thirds vote. To make matters worse, when those controversial paragraphs, which include the Kasper Proposal, were questioned by some synod fathers this week, they were told by Cardinal Baldisseri: “Well, if you want to get them out, it will require a two-thirds vote”! To be clear, this means that instead of needing a two-thirds vote to include paragraphs in the document, it will instead require a two-thirds vote to remove problematic language.

This demonstrates the Holy Father is allowing for the ramming of the Kasper Proposal down the throats of the Synod fathers, whether they like it or not.

Again, Rorate Caeli is noting, in some detail, the rigging of the Synod on the Family.

More can be said.  But methinks those Catholics not alarmed about the direction of Synod underestimate the perfidy of this Pope and of his allies.

Inflammatory President Denounces “Inflammatory” Rhetoric

You probably already knew that if you oppose de facto open borders, if you support at least making an honest effort to stop importing welfare looters, criminals, terrorists, and other future Democrats, then you are a BIGOT.

What you may not know is that Our Dear President Obama has come out and said so – to a Hispanic audience, of course.  He also decried all the “inflammatory” rhetoric on immigration. . . .

Yes, Obama can be a bit weak on self-awareness.

Or is he?  For both his divisive, inflammatory rhetoric and the angry backlash of opponents is probably calculated, an old Leftist tactic really. Jim Geraghty summarized this insightfully Wednesday morning (and before Obama’s remarks):

Another big reason Republicans are angry is because they have a president who embraces a political strategy of deliberately and consistently enraging conservatives. Major Garrett detailed the White House’s calculated effort to be controversial and provocative in 2014:

---

This is the White House theory of “Stray Voltage.” It is the brainchild of former White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe, whose methods loom large long after his departure. The theory goes like this: Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness.

---

Mickey Kaus characterizes the approach as “gaslighting” -- giving your opponent a legitimate reason to get angry, then turning around and pointing to their anger as evidence they’re unhinged, obsessed, incapable of governing responsibly, et cetera.

Which is exactly what Obama was doing in his aforesaid speech. I would say Mr. Geraghty is a prophet except we’ve seen this game before.

I saw this juvenile tactic in action from Leftist students more than once during my Duke days.  It is sad that we now have a President who shamelessly exercises this same tactic and divides this country as few have. 

Obama is a Leftist student who never grew up.

We’re Still Here. (And someone has some explaining to do.)

Today is October 8^th . . . which means the world was not “annihilated” on October 7^th as predicted.  I know.  Shocking.

Someone has some explaining to do.

Which should be quite fun.  How do you think the Seventh Day Adventists got started?  Probably Mr. Chris McCann will say the doom of the Earth was sealed in Heaven yesterday and the final date set for sure . . . which he intends to announce later, of course.

Funny how these supposed prophets through the years in all their dissectings and interpretations of numbers and signs and symbols and – heck, just pulling stuff out their ears – miss the obvious:

But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Mark 13:32

But if they paid more heed to those words from the Lord . . . real words from the Lord, life continuing would be less interesting, would it not.

The Pilot Point Livestock Commission

Note: I hope my readers will bear with me as I become more persistent in getting the word out about my novel Pilot Point the remainder of the year.  I intend for this to be my last big push on this project.

----

Some of you know that much of my novel Pilot Point, including almost all of “Dust,” a short story within a story, takes place at the North Texas Livestock Commission - which is pretty much the Pilot Point Livestock Commission around 1990.

My memories of first visiting the “sale barn,” as locals called it, are fuzzy.  I think I first went because I expected to buy and sell cattle there and wanted to educate myself first. 

And an education I got!  It took quite a while for me to figure out what was going on during the auctions, and that with some assistance from helpful people.  My first experience of auctions there were not unlike that of my main character, Clayton Hays:

…It took him a while just to figure out what was going on, especially to understand the auctioneer.  He never did figure out who some of the buyers were since bids were sometimes made with little more than a nod or a twitch.        

Trust me that my first time (and second and third?) at a Pilot Point cattle auction was very much like that!

But the “sale barn” grew on me even if it took me a long time to understand most of what was going on. 

Eventually I knew I would want to make it one of the settings of my novel.  And I wanted to get the it right.  So I became known as the man up on the catwalk taking notes on the sales as cowhands below me moved the cattle through the pens and alleys and in and out of the arena.

I hoped to revisit the Pilot Point Livestock Commission earlier this year, only to find out it closed a few years ago.  But it still lives in my novel Pilot Point.

---Mark

Pilot Point is still available at Amazon in both print and Kindle versions.

Also, feel free to like the Facebook page for Pilot Point.

Want to Play the Oregon Shooting Blame Game?

Before I rant start, the ignored obvious should be stated: the one to be blamed above all for the Oregon shooting yesterday is one Chris Harper Mercer.  And in a healthy, sane culture, it would be left largely at that.

But the political culture of the United States is hardly healthy and too rarely sane.  So, as always after a shooting not in Chicago, the Left is oh-so-eager to play the blame game to push gun confiscation, and Obama practically ran to the podium to do just that, of course.

But I will be a sport.  Does Obama and the Leftist fanboys want to play the Blame Game?  Then let’s play!

Umpqua Community College was a gun-free zone or at least the equivalent as confirmed by the UCC president.

UCC Interim President: We have a "no guns on campus" policy. #UCCShooting pic.twitter.com/mmWRKJcRA7

— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) October 1, 2015

Oh, the Left is doing their worst best to dispute that inconvenient fact.  They are failing.

As, sadly, in the Aurora shooting, this policy makes victims sitting ducks and is practically an invitation to shooters who prefer their victims unarmed.

At the very least, gun control on this campus did nothing to prevent this incident.  Likely, it made it worse.

Further, although the Democrat “mainstream” news media has yet to say much about it, there is very good reason to believe Chris Harper Mercer targeted Christians, as one young woman in the room testified before undergoing surgery.

The Left has created a hostile atmosphere against Christians in much of this country, particularly against Christians who hold firmly to traditional morality and refuse to participate in its destruction.  You can cut this atmosphere with a knife on the Left Coast.  Vilify even a peaceful, law-abiding demographic enough and allow such vilification legitimacy in a culture or subculture, and wronged-headed men could act out violently on that. 

And one did.

I will mercifully stop there.  But does the Left really want to play the Blame Game with this atrocity against Christians?  And that when the Left vilifies and disarms Christians and would surely go further in vilifying and disarming them?

The Problem with “Dialogue”

Eric Sammons over at OnePeterFive (Why did I not hear of this site before yesterday?) has posted an excellent article on the problems with dialogue with libchurchers (my word, not his).  His summary of the process of dialogue reflects very well what I’ve seen in the Anglican Communion and in mainline Protestant denominations:

---

The Teaser:  Some fringe radical theologian, or perhaps even a bishop, proposes a new teaching/practice contrary to Catholic Tradition.

The Trouble: Progressives come around to embrace the idea, and begin to promote it more and more vigorously. Faithful Catholics, on the other hand, resist the proposal, noting its conflict with perennial Church teaching/practice.

The “Muddle”: Progressives, as well as their unwitting lackeys among conservative Catholics, call for “dialogue.”

The Triumph: Progressives continue calling for dialogue ad infinitum until the progressive proposal is accepted either de jure or de facto. (Sorry, 60’s progressives – forgot the trigger warning before all that Latin).

The Kicker: Reset to a new “normal” before beginning the process all over again for the next, more radical, issue.

---

Too true.  Do read his whole straight-spoken yet thoughtful article for more.

I have long distrusted “dialogue” as a sham, a tactic libchurchers use to browbeat traditionalists until they get their way.  Then the matter is settled, of course.  “Dialogue” seems to always win with liberal victory over Biblical truth and morality.  And that, in fact, is the plan and only acceptable outcome for most libchurchers who clamor for dialogue.

And in “dialogue,” libchurchers usually deny or distort what God has clearly said in His Word.  Heck, the key words in the first serpentine dialogue were “Did God actually say . . .?”  As Eve found out the hard way, dialogue with liars is pointless and dangerous.

Better if Eve had said, “Shut up, snake.” And best we follow the example of the Fathers and put lying heretics and apostates in their place instead of “dialoguing” with them.  For “dialogue” with lies only serves to add legitimacy to lies and liars.

----

Please note that cutting off false teachers and clergy is what is called for.  Humble sincere seekers and new converts (or those who later in life decide to get more serious about their faith) are virtually all little heretics in some fashion, as I was, until they undergo patient orthodox Biblical instruction.  Gentle, loving but persistent teaching and discussion with them is a vital part of good evangelism and catechism.