Does Pope Francis fear God? On the Synod of the Family and the fracturing of the Catholic Church.
“And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood. A man must examine himself first, and then eat of that bread and drink of that cup; he is eating and drinking damnation to himself if he eats and drinks unworthily, not recognizing the Lord’s body for what it is.” — St. Paul 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
“The bond of Christian marriage is so strong that if it has attainted its full permanence with the use of conjugal rights, no power on Earth, not even Ours, the power of the Vicar of Christ, can rescind it.” — Pope Pius XII, 1946
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.
But make no mistake, the Synod will make the sacrilege of the Eucharist St. Paul warns against an official policy of the Roman Catholic Church. And in the process the Synod will encourage the breakup of more marriages.
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.
If we believe the best reporting about the election of Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy, he owes it to Cardinal Kasper and the progressive “St. Gallen” group of cardinals to try to win “acceptance” for the Kasper proposal. If the proposal seems unclear, let me try to simplify it. Traditionally if someone comes to Mass having committed the mortal sin, perhaps deliberately missing Sunday Mass the week previously, he must abstain from communion until he makes a sacramental confession of his sin to a priest. Under the Kasper proposal, a man who dumped his wife of 20 years for a trophy bride can have a putatively “penitential” talk with his priest or bishop about it, then approach the altar even as he lives in a state the church used to recognize as “public adultery.”
Pope Francis has given Cardinal Kasper many opportunities to preach his solution to fellow cardinals, and praised Kasper’s work as “theology done on one’s knees.” (A line sure to get a laugh at many seminaries.) Pope Francis’ own personnel decisions and the revision to rules of the Synod that came on Friday also suggest he is on board with the proposal. Though the traditional-leaning Cardinal Burke had for years been dealing with these precise issues at the church’s top court, he is not invited to the pope’s Synod. Instead, by special appointment and against the conventions of age limits, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, a Dutch prelate who supports same-sex marriage and has a reckless record on sexual abuse in his diocese, is invited to speak.
This is only one of scores of examples. Cardinal Baldisseri, who was accused by high-ranking prelates opposed to the Kasper proposal of manipulating last year’s Synod, is not only running it, but has also been assigned to the drafting committee for the final document. New Zealand’s Cardinal John Dew, who favors the proposal, was not elected by his fellow bishops to attend the Synod — but Pope Francis intervened to put him on the final drafting committee. Cardinal Donald Wuerl, a man known for his political acuity more than his doctrinal mind, is also on the final drafting committee. So, too, is Archbishop Bruno Forte, whose authorship of a passage on same-sex marriage at last year’s Synod became a controversy.
Apparently I am not alone in my fears. Take Cardinal Müller, who heads the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith; he’s the man charged with being the pope’s guardian of orthodoxy. (You may know it as the Office of the Holy Inquisition.) Müller has operated under persistent rumors that his office is to be dissolved entirely and its functions devolved to national groupings of bishops. Recently his office was completely bypassed when the pope issued a unilateral reform of annulments. Müller is also a persistent and outspoken opponent of the Kasper proposal. In a recent speech, he addressed the controversy in the starkest terms possible:
The valid and sacramental marriage is either indissoluble or dissoluble. There is not [a] third option. In view of so much talk about dialogue and its long processes, one cannot overlook in reality an ideological constrictedness or crampness. The goal of such an ideology is to enforce at least a change of practice, even if it damages truth and the unity of the church. [Rorate Caeli]
Damaging the unity of the church is a codeword for “schism.” There have been glancing hints of even worse fears. Last year, after reports that the conservative Australian Cardinal George Pell had dramatically intervened against the “manipulation” of the Synod, he began unburdening himself about the strangeness of Pope Francis, and referring to the history of anti-popes. Shortly thereafter he was hit by another wave of false accusations about his handling of child abusers.
Ignatius Press, a publisher that tried to get a book collecting objections to the Kasper proposal into the hands of every cardinal last year, has now issued several books anticipating the Synod. One, The Rigging of the Synod by reporter Edward Pentin, recounts the machinations at play last year. Another, Christ’s New Homeland — Africa, contains essays by prominent cardinals championing orthodoxy and applying its logic to their own situations, where they face more mixed marriages between Muslims and Christians and even polygamy. And then there is Cardinal Sarah’s book, titled, appropriately for a churchman, God or Nothing.
These books are all good. And Cardinal Sarah’s book, which is really a long-form interview, looks almost like the kind of manifesto that precedes an election to the papacy itself. God hasten that day. But I fear these prelates are treating the symptom and not the disease.
The conservative opponents of the Kasper proposal now talk of the recent history of the church as a “crisis.” This is remarkable language for a church that has canonized or beatified almost every pontiff in living memory. Previously, it was thought bold to talk about “confusion” in the church in the years after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. The language of crisis is a word that conservatives borrow from the traditionalist critics of that council and its aftermath. I am one of them.
The truth, if the prelates can shoulder it, is that the loss of Catholic faith we are witnessing in the Synod process should have been expected. At the Second Vatican Council and afterward, the church itself contributed to the worst spasm of iconoclasm in the history of Christendom. The past had to be destroyed. The council called for the revision of all the laws that governed the material objects of Catholic worship, from altars to images to tabernacles to baptistries. Shortly afterward the entire Mass — the central act of Catholic worship — was re-written according to shoddy, ideologically motivated scholarship.
Theologians like Karl Rahner substituted new theologies for the Mass that specifically suppressed any understanding of it as a propitiatory sacrifice. Across the world, altars and altar rails were smashed, statues and confessionals thrown in the dump. Thomas Cranmer, a leader of the English Reformation, must have laughed from his grave.
A novice student of religious studies can recognize what happened. If all the physical and verbal aspects of worship are changed, and the very rationale of the act is changed, then you are not reforming a people’s religion, you are substituting a new one in the old one’s place.
This act of substitution is in the language of Rahner’s writing on the Mass, where the priest becomes a mere “presider” — or worse, a “president” — and the church becomes an “assembly.” And so, quite naturally, most Masses in most modern churches have exactly the wan atmosphere of a high school assembly. The church now puts sanctimony in the place of sanctity, therapeutic self-acceptance in the place of holiness, “participation” in the place of devotion, and love of man where once was the love of God. Ultimately, man is substituted for God himself.
The “New Mass” of the Second Vatican Council, in a halting and incomplete way, expresses a completely new theology, one that is nearly the opposite of Catholicism. Instead of Christ dying on the cross to redeem sinners, he dies on the cross because man’s dignity demands that he does so. The recognition of this supreme dignity of man at the Mass is not a sacrifice, but a memorial gathering. And this gathering foreshadows the as-yet-unrealized unity of all men, not the heavenly feast. Thus after the moment of consecration, instead of allowing Catholics a moment to contemplate the mystery of the incarnation and the sacrifice of Calvary, they stand up and nervously shake hands. Because it is not just a new religion, but a banal one.
Kasper’s own writing evinces an entirely untraditional concept of God himself. God does not make the world in which we inhabit. Instead, reality is historically constructed by man and for man. Man discovers the “truth” by opening himself up to an experience of transcendence, and does so progressively throughout history, drawing ever forward to his ultimate historical realization. For all of his fondness for Hegel, Kasper’s theology amounts to a spiritualized Whig view of history. Naturally he concludes that the dogmas of the church must change, since “dogma never settles a theological issue once and for all.”
Some opponents of the Kasper proposal think they are facing a merely incoherent plan to change the discipline of the church. They think that it is a category error, that Kasper and his allies have confused things that are judged in prudence (like whether lay Catholics ought to abstain from meat on Friday) with those that are a logical consequence of unchangeable doctrine and the words of scripture (like the rule that those in mortal sin must abstain from Holy Communion). But it is not a question of discipline. For Kasper and for his confreres, the proposal is an attempt to realize the new religion more fully, the religion that is haltingly expressed not just in the imposition of a “New Mass” after the Second Vatican Council, but also in rite of the New Mass itself — the religion that ceaselessly evolves to accommodate (Western) man’s desires.
You cannot find the future moral teachings of this religion in scripture, only in the surveys and opinion polls of the future. It collapses into a shallow phenomenalism. Whatever Christians are getting up to these days, that is the revealed moral teaching of the church.
Of all Kasper’s critics, only Cardinal Müller seems to understand the stakes. “Within the frame of Modernist schemes of development,” he said during a recent lecture, “Revelation and the Dogmas of the Church are merely historically conditioned transitional stages at the end of which stands the self-divinization of man. The Revelation in Christ and its heretofore history would only be a preparatory stage for an understanding of God, world, and church in which man himself is subject and object of the Revelation at the same time.”
The Catholic understanding of marriage as an indissoluble, creative union is not mere policy. It reflects the whole history of salvation, in which God reveals himself as the faithful bridegroom, chasing after his sometimes unfaithful bride: Israel and the church itself. When Israel turns to strange gods and idols, God’s prophets call her a harlot. And God calls her to come back home to live with him. A sacramental wedding in this world evokes and foreshadows the union of God and his bride — the church at the end of the time.
That is why even the church cannot dissolve it. If the church is God’s bride, it cannot countenance a form of “legitimated adultery” anymore than it can impose legitimated idolatry. To attempt one is to attempt the other.
These hierarchs are gathering together, as the chief authorities in the Bride of Christ, and they talk flippantly about legitimizing unfaithfulness. I have one question for them.
Do they not fear God?
My Comment : Do They not fear God ? Apparently not and that’s the problem, all the feedback I receive on the current Synod are going in this direction, they do not fear God ! in fact as I said in my last blog, everything was prepared in advance and this explains why I opened my blog in March 2013 as well, a single phone call to share with a close friend my joy about the election of Pope Francis to finally understand that “we were in trouble”, this was in 2013, 2 years ago already then I started to suggest online and to my readers, to be careful with the current team in Rome and got a lot of bad comments and emails, yet today my fears are confirmed every day by many Catholics around the World but “what they are doing with our Church” ? I cannot count how many emails in 2 years I received with the same question “what they are doing with our Church?” and how this will end, what they are doing my Brothers is called Apostasy and unfortunately this will be paid in blood by all of us because they are taking us with them in their betrayal as we are few only to resist, too few because of the so call “politically correct spirit” as having doubts about a Pope is very hard to accept for many so most prefers to remain silent but in my opinion this is a mistake, Praying, the Rosary, The mass is of course good and our duty but not enough today, we need to stand up, we must defend the Teaching of the Church, it is also our right and we must always remember these words from the Lady of Carmel, now your hands are empty, think about the Passion of Jesus !
But to resist I also need you and your help, a donate button was add yesterday on the blog, it is not a pride for me please be sure of that, I spent almost the last 10 years on my life to bring back Garabandal online with the latest news from the Village and my own vision of this little paradise on earth, this has been a Cross sometimes as a Joy but always with the same wish, the truth nothing but the truth, this had also a cost for me espacially today and I saw it during my last stay in the village this summer, for the Baptism of our New Born, my opinion about this Pontificate is not welcomed by some, I was advised to be careful especially with the Holy Father and so on, any way I am not known to look down as many know, so if you can help, don’t hesitate, I know it’s difficult for all of us currently as everyone must feed his rabbits and 2 of them are mine as well but Garabandal News must stay online, his voice will count, many surprises are underway, you will not be disappointed and finally we will meet each other at the Pines for the Great Miracle, this will be our Victory, you have my word but before that day, the road will be difficult, so let’s stay together, you will not regret !
I was not aware of this prophecy, will Watch the video and I will let you know my opinion, thanks.
Well Agnus, I watched your video, a sede vacante video, the sede vacante position is the same heresy as modernism and is not welcomed on this blog, thank you.
We can all add a few little crumbs in the help button of this blog and in the end it might be a big help. I hope you’ll be able to rescue the big crowd of followers that this blog had in the old address.
Thank you Basto, followers are back and close to 1000 per day, we will be more soon as it’s the time to Garabandal.
Joe, you are wrong to support a pope that is protestantizing the Catholic Church. Quit shaming people that want the Catholic Church to preserve her teachings on Holy Matrimony. They martyr deaths of Saint John the Baptist, St. Thomas More, St. John Fischer must mean little or nothing to you.
No comment of this Joe on this blog anymore, this was his first and last one.
Be cautious when dealing with Rorate Caeli. While they break news stories, they have a strong affinity for the Society of St. Pius X and have a tendency to throw the Pope under the bus when it suits them.
Punch him out !
As the Benny Hill show (aka the Synod on the Family) continues, it is being reported by Arcbhishop Gadecki that Jose Luiz Cardinal Lacunza Maestrojuan, president of the Panamanian Bishops’ Conference and appointed by Pope Francis as a synod rapporteur, proposed that the church should throw out the teachings of Jesus on divorce and remarriage, by, get this…returning to the Law of Moses on the matter. The quote, provided by Rorate Caeli, is as follows:
“Moses drew near to the people and gave way. Likewise today, the ‘hardness of hearts’ opposes God’s plan. Could Peter not be merciful like Moses?”
Let it be known, this is nothing less than a call to apostasy. In fact, to cast aside the teachings of Christ and return to the Law of Moses is the very first example of apostasy in the New Testament and it wasn’t looked at too kindly either (see Hebrews 6:4-8). For this reason, it would appear Maestrojuan would have the church be the kind of apostate of whom it is written:
“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them [Jesus]–bringing swift destruction on themselves.” (2 Peter 2:1, Emphasis mine)
And of whom it is also written in the Epistle to the Galatians:
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8)
In the same epistle, Paul warns the Galatians about the danger of returning to the Law of Moses, after having received Christ, saying:
“You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” (Galatians 5:4)
To dare imply the church should abandon the teachings of Christ and return to the Law of Moses on the matter of marriage is pure apostasy. Men who say such things are depraved enemies who are under God’s curse.
Here is the $64,000 question: Why didn’t Pope Francis, or any other bishop present at this intervention, walk up to Cardinal Maestrojuan and punch him right in the face like St. Nicholas did to the heresiarch Arius at the Council of Nicaea? This should have been a “St. Nicholas” moment!
Whatever happened to righteous indignation? How anyone could sit there and listen to such vomit from Satan, without sparking an uproar, shows how weak the current men in the hierarchy are. In days of old, this man wouldn’t have walked out of such an intervention unscathed. These days, I suspect the Holy Father will give him a promotion.
My Comment : Move on.