One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
A Hostile Takeover of the Catholic Church?
Oct 17, 2022 18:28:12   #
AuntiE Loc: 46th Least Free State
 
https://www.frontpagemag.com/a-hostile-takeover-of-the-catholic-church/

A Hostile Takeover of the Catholic Church?

Does the Synod have a sinister purpose?

October 17, 2022 by William Kilpatrick

In a recent interview on EWTN’s The World Over, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, warned that the Synod on Synodality was engaged in a “hostile takeover of the Church.”

If you’re not sure what “synodality “means, don’t feel bad, very few know what the Synod of Synodality is all about. As best as I can tell, it’s a multi-year process consisting of numerous meetings and consultations which will culminate in the Synod of Bishops next year in Rome. It has to do with “walking together,” listening to one another, and gathering opinions from the faithful and not-so-faithful.

They haven’t gotten around yet to asking my opinion, so I’ll offer it here in case they never do.

My opinion? I agree with Cardinal Muller that the Synod is intended to be a “hostile takeover” of the Church. The first giveaway is the vagueness of it all. It’s about “listening to the Holy Spirit,” “listening to everybody,” and “not excluding anyone.” It’s the kind of language an HR department uses when it wants employees to think that their opinions are highly valued.

When the Synodal leaders do get more explicit, it only reinforces Cardinal Muller’s charge of a takeover. In speaking of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Communion, or same-sex couples receiving a blessing, Cardinal Mario Grech, the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, said they should be listened to because “this [might] be an opportunity for the Church to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through them also.”

Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, the Realtor General for the Synod (i.e., the man in charge) seems to already know what the Holy Spirit will say about these issues. Earlier this year, he said that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is “no longer correct.” “It’s about time,” he said, “we did a fundamental revision of the doctrine here.”

Of course, if the Synod can revise one doctrine, what’s to prevent it from revising a few more? Or even two dozen? There are all sorts of pressure groups within the Church who favor changes to doctrine—changes that will make them feel more comfortable, but may cause enormous damage to the Church.

To get an idea of how the synodal way will likely proceed, it’s useful to consider an example of another “hostile takeover.”

About five years ago, I wrote a piece about the “hijacking” of the Catholic-Muslim dialogue in America by Islamists. Perhaps “hijacking” was too strong a word. “Influence operation” might have been more accurate. In any event, the initial goal of the dialogue—to learn more about each other’s religion—shifted, in the words of one Catholic official, to “advocacy” for Muslims.

Thus, Anthony Cirelli, associate director of the USCCB’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs told Catholic News Service that “there is an “urgency to engage more in a kind of advocacy and policy in support of the Muslim community.” He added that U.S. bishops are “coming to stand with our Muslim colleagues…in trying to change the negative narrative surrounding Muslims in our popular media.”

In short, instead of Catholics learning more about Islam, the aim of the dialogues shifted to Catholics helping Muslims to improve their image. The “urgency” was not to understand Islam, but to “stand with our Muslim colleagues…” Against what? Against a supposed tsunami of “Islamophobia.”

But there was very little evidence of any real Islamophobia. Much of the data on anti-Muslim attacks was based on false reports. Moreover, Muslim-on-Muslim attacks (which are relatively frequent) were counted as instances of “Islamophobia.” And the media, far from pushing a false negative narrative about Islam, had instead painted a false positive image—namely, that Islam is a “religion of peace” that has “nothing to do with violence.” If the media was guilty of anything, it was guilty of covering up the massive scale of global Islamic terror attacks.

Nevertheless, Catholic leaders in America and elsewhere fell for the “Islamophobia” scam, and they threw money and resources into the anti-Islamophobia campaign—a campaign that was already well-funded by Arab Gulf States.

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that Catholic dialoguers had been innocent victims. For most of them, the “Islamophobia” narrative was the narrative that they wanted to believe. It fit nicely into the Catholic narrative about Islam that had developed in the wake of Vatican II—namely, that Islam was a fellow Abrahamic religion that shared much in common with Catholicism, especially a desire for peace.

This focus on shared beliefs provided two main benefits to the Catholic dialogue participants. First, it allowed them to avoid the unpleasant business of discussing major theological differences with Muslims and, second, it gave them an opportunity to signal their virtues.

If Muslims could be portrayed as victims of Islamophobia, then Catholic prelates who “stand with our Muslim colleagues” could portray themselves as protectors of the victims—older brothers who would defend their younger siblings from the bullies of the world. As Bishop (now Cardinal) Robert Mc Elroy said at one USCCB dialogue event, Catholics need to take up the fight against “the scourge of anti-Islamic prejudice.”

However, as anyone who is acquainted with recent history ought to know, Islam is hardly a defenseless younger brother. The number of Muslims in the world dwarfs the number of Catholics. And Islam is far more a victimizer than a victim. Anyone who doubts this ought to consult Raymond Ibrahim’s detailed record of the persecution of non-Muslims by Muslims in recent years. Yet, despite this abundant evidence, Catholic bishops seem more interested in protecting Muslims from imaginary crimes than in protecting Christians from real crimes at the hands of Muslims.

I bring up the “hijacking” of the Catholic-Muslim dialogue because what Cardinal Muller calls the “hostile takeover” of the Church by the Synod of Synodality seems to be proceeding by the same method. The Synod organizers are not interested in debating the merits of new movements within the Church, but rather of presenting various dissenting groups as “victims” who deserve justice.

In other words, the aim is not to discuss the pros and cons of women priests or same-sex unions or the LGBT agenda but to convince ordinary Catholics that they must stand with their “persecuted” and “powerless” younger brothers and sisters in Christ.

So just as bishops have come to believe that they have a mission to protect Muslims from “Islamophobes,” they also believe they have a mission to protect dissenting minorities in the Church from “homophobes,” “transphobes,” and every other type of “progressivephobe” (a word which in all probability will soon be added to the lexicon). Moreover, the 24/7 focus on the needs and grievances of these supposed victims deflects attention away from the harm they do to Church and society

As in the case of Muslim “victims” of Islamophobia, these “excluded “groups are presented as beleaguered and powerless minorities when, in fact, they wield considerable power. As is well-known, Pope Francis has stacked the College of Cardinals with progressive prelates who share his own agenda. Moreover, many, if not most, of the top positions in the Vatican are currently held by pro-LGBT and pro-communion-for-everyone cardinals and bishops. It is they, not Cardinal Muller and the handful of other conservative prelates, who are calling the shots.

In this regard, traditional Catholics need to learn a lesson from current political realities in America. In the wake of Joe Biden’s presidential victory, it turned out that the deep state bureaucracy and the Democratic machine had amassed far more power and control over American society than any, except for a few, had imagined. The “hijacking” of America was much further advanced than most had supposed.

Likewise, traditional Catholics should not be surprised when they discover that the “deep Church” of the dissenters wields far more power than they had thought possible.

They also should not be surprised to discover that the supposed “victims” of the Church’s “exclusivity” will turn out to be victimizers. The main victim of the “hostile takeover” will be the Church itself and the gospel revelation entrusted to it. The next set of victims will be all those Christians who have come to rely on that revelation for hope and guidance.

A recent piece in the National Catholic Register puts the matter bluntly: “Some faithful German Catholics are already talking, not of the synodal way, but the suicidal way.”

According to some Catholic officials, the word “synod” derives from two Greek words meaning “to walk together” or “walking together.” Unless it makes a sharp course correction, the current Synod on Synodality may be more accurately described as “walking together over the cliff.”

Reply
Oct 19, 2022 04:57:07   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
AuntiE,

The "Synod on Synodality" is not referenced in my official Vatican approved Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It's good that in this bland world of banalities (Plural form of banality - In old French and French-Canadian law, the right by which a lord compelled his vassals to grind at his mill, bake at his oven, etc.: applied also to the regions within which this right was exercised.) the *Holy See has this worthwhile project into which they may sink their sacred dentures.

Although the *Holy See is sometimes metonymically referred to as the "Vatican'", the Vatican City State was distinctively established with the Lateran Treaty of 1929, between the Holy See and Italy, to ensure the temporal, diplomatic, and spiritual independence of the papacy.

The Synod on Synodality: Mission Accomplished? Analysis...

https://wherepeteris.com/the-synod-on-synodality-mission-accomplished/

by Nathan Turowsky · October 17, 2022

Yahoo! News ran an interesting analysis of the US response to the synod on synodality on Tuesday. Every noun and adjective in that sentence other than “Tuesday” might typically raise eyebrows, but the article, by senior editor Peter Weber, did provide a useful overview of the wide range of opinions on the synod by Catholics across the ideological spectrum. One of the most intriguing parts cited an essay that Cardinal Robert McElroy wrote for America back in May. Writes McElroy:

A synodal church is a discerning church, not a parliamentary one. It must empower the voices of all, but its search for God’s will cannot be reduced to building majorities or forming coalitions. It is essential to recognize that synodality is more concerned with nurturing a culture within the life of the church rather than specific policy outcomes.

This is the sixth of seven “marks of a synodal church” that McElroy provided in his article, but it was likely highlighted because his emphasis on process and nurturing rather than outcomes is difficult to understand for most Americans and thus for most of the outlet’s readership. (On this point Weber quotes Thomas Reese writing for the Religion News Service.) Indeed, much of the current level of discussion about the synod is itself only relevant to what’s happening if we assume that this is a smokescreen for a process that is result-oriented. This seems to be what most of the synod’s most strident critics are afraid of: the pope has some sort of cultural and doctrinal sea change already in mind and is constructing the “synodality” concept as a way to preemptively justify it theologically.

But let’s take McElroy at his word that that isn’t what the synod is about. Let’s take his word that it really is about a process and a culture, not policy outcomes. How is that process going? How is that culture taking shape?

I would say that this is a process that, as Cardinal McElroy probably knows very well himself, is already underway. Previous synods, even a few of the ones under Pope Francis, have been attempts to shape Church policy or teaching in a specific area in accordance with the current Pope’s wishes; this one has no defined end goal or even subject matter at all. Beyond the synod itself, however, the culture that it’s supposed to create in the Church is one that many, maybe most, Catholics already live and breathe. The old Jewish saying—“two Jews, three opinions”—is not quite true of Catholics yet (if it ever will be!), but Catholic intellectual life is undeniably more hospitable for controversialists and satirists and less hospitable for yes-men and advocates of complacent piety than it was a century or even a decade ago.

The listening session that I went to in the Diocese of Albany involved an astounding amount of cross-chatter and people rolling their eyes and going “oh, come ON” at other participants’ ideas. To at least some extent this is reflected in parish life today as well; if a priest or deacon gives a politically or socially controversial or topical homily, at least some congregants are liable to dislike it and say so. (This is probably more the case in some parishes than others; obviously there are still plenty of parish priests out there who are authoritarian and/or too charismatic for their own good.) Two Jews, three opinions; two Catholics, three axes to grind. Is the Church a “listening Church”? It’s at the very least a “hearing Church”; it’s impossible to completely tune out this kind of godly din!

I would even go further with this: the constant traditionalist brickbats and over-the-top criticism of the pope are themselves a clear sign of a “listening Church,” as much as both we here at Where Peter Is and the traditionalists themselves might hate to think so. The bellicose attitude and hermeneutic of suspicion with which Pope Francis’s fashionable despisers approach everything the man says and does are attitudes that all sorts of people have held towards his predecessors for centuries.

See Sinéad O’Connor ripping up a portrait of John Paul II on live TV in 1992 as a protest against clerical sex abuse—or, much further back, Dante putting the still-alive Clement V in hell for simony in Canto XIX of the Inferno. However, these sorts of attacks were never actually perceived (except, sometimes, well after the fact) as the good-faith acts of faithful Catholics. Sinéad O’Connor is Muslim now, and Dante died in exile. Catholics loudly insisting on their fidelity to the Church’s tradition and magisterium, yet constantly attacking the incumbent Pope, would have seemed bizarre as recently as a decade ago.

Yet they do it now, and Pope Francis lets them do it; “dictator pope” accusations aside, he’s been very slow to discipline lay theologians and apologists who oppose him and even bishops who publicly undermine his ministry. I don’t actually intend this as a backhanded observation; I think it’s good that the right flank of the Church is participating in this process, even though I wish they would be more honest with themselves about it. For example, Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider have both expressed worry that constant synods unduly weaken the “vertical” authority of the Pope they hate. I hope they reconsider this view, or—failing that—get more consistent about it and stop being the parrhesia they don’t want to see in the world.

If we’re to understand the synod on synodality as more of an introduction of a new process than an attempt to arrive at results, and if we’re to understand that process as a way of being in the Church rather than a series of bureaucratic procedures, then it becomes possible to say, to be blunt, mission accomplished.

This might not be the wisest or most prudent framing, but at this point I think it’s safe to say it is an accurate one. Nobody in the Catholic Church thinks it’s possible to go back to the days of the Pope knowing best, one’s own bishop and pastor knowing second- and third-best, and everyone else either falling in line or grousing privately.

Nobody, especially not Burke and Schneider, wants to go back to those days, either. Even Catholics who would go right back to the “papolatry” to which they once adhered (and of which they currently accuse WPI) should the next conclave elect a traditionalist pope would, presumably, reserve the right to reverse course again if his successor were more in the Bergoglian mold. Joe and Jane Catholic speaking their minds on everything under the sun and the institutional Church having to accept their right to do so is a way of doing things that has been with us for years, decades in some places. “Synodality” is just putting a name on this; the four-year process is just providing a channel down which that water and light, now named, might flow."


Nathan Turowsky is a native New Englander and now lives in Upstate New York. A lifelong fascination with religious ritual led him into first the Episcopal Church and then the Catholic Church. An alumnus of Boston University School of Theology and one of the relatively few Catholic alumni of that primarily Wesleyan institution, he is unmarried and works in the nonprofit sector. He writes at Silicate Siesta.

Reply
Oct 20, 2022 14:01:49   #
Radiance3
 
AuntiE wrote:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/a-hostile-takeover-of-the-catholic-church/

A Hostile Takeover of the Catholic Church?

Does the Synod have a sinister purpose?

October 17, 2022 by William Kilpatrick

In a recent interview on EWTN’s The World Over, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, warned that the Synod on Synodality was engaged in a “hostile takeover of the Church.”

If you’re not sure what “synodality “means, don’t feel bad, very few know what the Synod of Synodality is all about. As best as I can tell, it’s a multi-year process consisting of numerous meetings and consultations which will culminate in the Synod of Bishops next year in Rome. It has to do with “walking together,” listening to one another, and gathering opinions from the faithful and not-so-faithful.

They haven’t gotten around yet to asking my opinion, so I’ll offer it here in case they never do.

My opinion? I agree with Cardinal Muller that the Synod is intended to be a “hostile takeover” of the Church. The first giveaway is the vagueness of it all. It’s about “listening to the Holy Spirit,” “listening to everybody,” and “not excluding anyone.” It’s the kind of language an HR department uses when it wants employees to think that their opinions are highly valued.

When the Synodal leaders do get more explicit, it only reinforces Cardinal Muller’s charge of a takeover. In speaking of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Communion, or same-sex couples receiving a blessing, Cardinal Mario Grech, the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, said they should be listened to because “this [might] be an opportunity for the Church to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through them also.”

Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, the Realtor General for the Synod (i.e., the man in charge) seems to already know what the Holy Spirit will say about these issues. Earlier this year, he said that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is “no longer correct.” “It’s about time,” he said, “we did a fundamental revision of the doctrine here.”

Of course, if the Synod can revise one doctrine, what’s to prevent it from revising a few more? Or even two dozen? There are all sorts of pressure groups within the Church who favor changes to doctrine—changes that will make them feel more comfortable, but may cause enormous damage to the Church.

To get an idea of how the synodal way will likely proceed, it’s useful to consider an example of another “hostile takeover.”

About five years ago, I wrote a piece about the “hijacking” of the Catholic-Muslim dialogue in America by Islamists. Perhaps “hijacking” was too strong a word. “Influence operation” might have been more accurate. In any event, the initial goal of the dialogue—to learn more about each other’s religion—shifted, in the words of one Catholic official, to “advocacy” for Muslims.

Thus, Anthony Cirelli, associate director of the USCCB’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs told Catholic News Service that “there is an “urgency to engage more in a kind of advocacy and policy in support of the Muslim community.” He added that U.S. bishops are “coming to stand with our Muslim colleagues…in trying to change the negative narrative surrounding Muslims in our popular media.”

In short, instead of Catholics learning more about Islam, the aim of the dialogues shifted to Catholics helping Muslims to improve their image. The “urgency” was not to understand Islam, but to “stand with our Muslim colleagues…” Against what? Against a supposed tsunami of “Islamophobia.”

But there was very little evidence of any real Islamophobia. Much of the data on anti-Muslim attacks was based on false reports. Moreover, Muslim-on-Muslim attacks (which are relatively frequent) were counted as instances of “Islamophobia.” And the media, far from pushing a false negative narrative about Islam, had instead painted a false positive image—namely, that Islam is a “religion of peace” that has “nothing to do with violence.” If the media was guilty of anything, it was guilty of covering up the massive scale of global Islamic terror attacks.

Nevertheless, Catholic leaders in America and elsewhere fell for the “Islamophobia” scam, and they threw money and resources into the anti-Islamophobia campaign—a campaign that was already well-funded by Arab Gulf States.

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that Catholic dialoguers had been innocent victims. For most of them, the “Islamophobia” narrative was the narrative that they wanted to believe. It fit nicely into the Catholic narrative about Islam that had developed in the wake of Vatican II—namely, that Islam was a fellow Abrahamic religion that shared much in common with Catholicism, especially a desire for peace.

This focus on shared beliefs provided two main benefits to the Catholic dialogue participants. First, it allowed them to avoid the unpleasant business of discussing major theological differences with Muslims and, second, it gave them an opportunity to signal their virtues.

If Muslims could be portrayed as victims of Islamophobia, then Catholic prelates who “stand with our Muslim colleagues” could portray themselves as protectors of the victims—older brothers who would defend their younger siblings from the bullies of the world. As Bishop (now Cardinal) Robert Mc Elroy said at one USCCB dialogue event, Catholics need to take up the fight against “the scourge of anti-Islamic prejudice.”

However, as anyone who is acquainted with recent history ought to know, Islam is hardly a defenseless younger brother. The number of Muslims in the world dwarfs the number of Catholics. And Islam is far more a victimizer than a victim. Anyone who doubts this ought to consult Raymond Ibrahim’s detailed record of the persecution of non-Muslims by Muslims in recent years. Yet, despite this abundant evidence, Catholic bishops seem more interested in protecting Muslims from imaginary crimes than in protecting Christians from real crimes at the hands of Muslims.

I bring up the “hijacking” of the Catholic-Muslim dialogue because what Cardinal Muller calls the “hostile takeover” of the Church by the Synod of Synodality seems to be proceeding by the same method. The Synod organizers are not interested in debating the merits of new movements within the Church, but rather of presenting various dissenting groups as “victims” who deserve justice.

In other words, the aim is not to discuss the pros and cons of women priests or same-sex unions or the LGBT agenda but to convince ordinary Catholics that they must stand with their “persecuted” and “powerless” younger brothers and sisters in Christ.

So just as bishops have come to believe that they have a mission to protect Muslims from “Islamophobes,” they also believe they have a mission to protect dissenting minorities in the Church from “homophobes,” “transphobes,” and every other type of “progressivephobe” (a word which in all probability will soon be added to the lexicon). Moreover, the 24/7 focus on the needs and grievances of these supposed victims deflects attention away from the harm they do to Church and society

As in the case of Muslim “victims” of Islamophobia, these “excluded “groups are presented as beleaguered and powerless minorities when, in fact, they wield considerable power. As is well-known, Pope Francis has stacked the College of Cardinals with progressive prelates who share his own agenda. Moreover, many, if not most, of the top positions in the Vatican are currently held by pro-LGBT and pro-communion-for-everyone cardinals and bishops. It is they, not Cardinal Muller and the handful of other conservative prelates, who are calling the shots.

In this regard, traditional Catholics need to learn a lesson from current political realities in America. In the wake of Joe Biden’s presidential victory, it turned out that the deep state bureaucracy and the Democratic machine had amassed far more power and control over American society than any, except for a few, had imagined. The “hijacking” of America was much further advanced than most had supposed.

Likewise, traditional Catholics should not be surprised when they discover that the “deep Church” of the dissenters wields far more power than they had thought possible.

They also should not be surprised to discover that the supposed “victims” of the Church’s “exclusivity” will turn out to be victimizers. The main victim of the “hostile takeover” will be the Church itself and the gospel revelation entrusted to it. The next set of victims will be all those Christians who have come to rely on that revelation for hope and guidance.

A recent piece in the National Catholic Register puts the matter bluntly: “Some faithful German Catholics are already talking, not of the synodal way, but the suicidal way.”

According to some Catholic officials, the word “synod” derives from two Greek words meaning “to walk together” or “walking together.” Unless it makes a sharp course correction, the current Synod on Synodality may be more accurately described as “walking together over the cliff.”
https://www.frontpagemag.com/a-hostile-takeover-of... (show quote)

=====================
AuntiE, thank you for your post. I want to address this to you alone, and not to many others, who assumed that I am a Devil for being a Catholic. Since 2013, when Pope Benedict was replaced by Pope Francis, I was aware that many things could happen differently, and which I am not happy about it since then.

The replacement of Pope Benedict by Pope Francis, was due to poor health of Pope Benedicts. But that was not true. Truth was not officially reported of course, but main reason was poor health. Fact of the matter is Pope Benedict is healthier and stronger than the present Pope Francis today. But Pope Francis said, he doesn't want to retire but stay till the end.

It was rumored in 2013, thru Wikileaks, that Pope Francis took over of the Vatican was thru the powerful interventions of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George Sorors. i There was a link on that matter, but due to the length of time, link does not work anymore.

I was not happy with the changes of the Papacy since 2013. And much more so now that if Pope Francis has plans to change the structure of the Church as reported in your post, and many other sources I've read as well.

Fact of the matter is I am very distressed hearing all these changes that could happen. I cry and pray every night, but I focus my faith and attention to Christ, and never to the Pope as many people think of. I don't worship the Pope. We respect all leaders of the Church but NOT to worship them.

My Catholic faith raised me with Christ as the Central focus of our faith, and along with the Holy Trinity as One God Forever. That to Whom we pray to.

The accusations of many people are different otherwise. The accusations of many people do not actually and truly represent my worship to God. I spend nights of crying and praying, to God, that I am not mislead and lost in my journey here on earth. I want to join with Christ for the rest of my life. And doing that, my faith stands with Him, along with loving, and caring for all His people. And practicing all the virtues we were supposed to do.

May God bless you, and all who believe in the same Christ as I do.

Reply
 
 
Oct 20, 2022 19:45:33   #
Radiance3
 
AuntiE wrote:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/a-hostile-takeover-of-the-catholic-church/

A Hostile Takeover of the Catholic Church?

Does the Synod have a sinister purpose?

October 17, 2022 by William Kilpatrick

In a recent interview on EWTN’s The World Over, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, warned that the Synod on Synodality was engaged in a “hostile takeover of the Church.”

If you’re not sure what “synodality “means, don’t feel bad, very few know what the Synod of Synodality is all about. As best as I can tell, it’s a multi-year process consisting of numerous meetings and consultations which will culminate in the Synod of Bishops next year in Rome. It has to do with “walking together,” listening to one another, and gathering opinions from the faithful and not-so-faithful.

They haven’t gotten around yet to asking my opinion, so I’ll offer it here in case they never do.

My opinion? I agree with Cardinal Muller that the Synod is intended to be a “hostile takeover” of the Church. The first giveaway is the vagueness of it all. It’s about “listening to the Holy Spirit,” “listening to everybody,” and “not excluding anyone.” It’s the kind of language an HR department uses when it wants employees to think that their opinions are highly valued.

When the Synodal leaders do get more explicit, it only reinforces Cardinal Muller’s charge of a takeover. In speaking of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Communion, or same-sex couples receiving a blessing, Cardinal Mario Grech, the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, said they should be listened to because “this [might] be an opportunity for the Church to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through them also.”

Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, the Realtor General for the Synod (i.e., the man in charge) seems to already know what the Holy Spirit will say about these issues. Earlier this year, he said that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is “no longer correct.” “It’s about time,” he said, “we did a fundamental revision of the doctrine here.”

Of course, if the Synod can revise one doctrine, what’s to prevent it from revising a few more? Or even two dozen? There are all sorts of pressure groups within the Church who favor changes to doctrine—changes that will make them feel more comfortable, but may cause enormous damage to the Church.

To get an idea of how the synodal way will likely proceed, it’s useful to consider an example of another “hostile takeover.”

About five years ago, I wrote a piece about the “hijacking” of the Catholic-Muslim dialogue in America by Islamists. Perhaps “hijacking” was too strong a word. “Influence operation” might have been more accurate. In any event, the initial goal of the dialogue—to learn more about each other’s religion—shifted, in the words of one Catholic official, to “advocacy” for Muslims.

Thus, Anthony Cirelli, associate director of the USCCB’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs told Catholic News Service that “there is an “urgency to engage more in a kind of advocacy and policy in support of the Muslim community.” He added that U.S. bishops are “coming to stand with our Muslim colleagues…in trying to change the negative narrative surrounding Muslims in our popular media.”

In short, instead of Catholics learning more about Islam, the aim of the dialogues shifted to Catholics helping Muslims to improve their image. The “urgency” was not to understand Islam, but to “stand with our Muslim colleagues…” Against what? Against a supposed tsunami of “Islamophobia.”

But there was very little evidence of any real Islamophobia. Much of the data on anti-Muslim attacks was based on false reports. Moreover, Muslim-on-Muslim attacks (which are relatively frequent) were counted as instances of “Islamophobia.” And the media, far from pushing a false negative narrative about Islam, had instead painted a false positive image—namely, that Islam is a “religion of peace” that has “nothing to do with violence.” If the media was guilty of anything, it was guilty of covering up the massive scale of global Islamic terror attacks.

Nevertheless, Catholic leaders in America and elsewhere fell for the “Islamophobia” scam, and they threw money and resources into the anti-Islamophobia campaign—a campaign that was already well-funded by Arab Gulf States.

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that Catholic dialoguers had been innocent victims. For most of them, the “Islamophobia” narrative was the narrative that they wanted to believe. It fit nicely into the Catholic narrative about Islam that had developed in the wake of Vatican II—namely, that Islam was a fellow Abrahamic religion that shared much in common with Catholicism, especially a desire for peace.

This focus on shared beliefs provided two main benefits to the Catholic dialogue participants. First, it allowed them to avoid the unpleasant business of discussing major theological differences with Muslims and, second, it gave them an opportunity to signal their virtues.

If Muslims could be portrayed as victims of Islamophobia, then Catholic prelates who “stand with our Muslim colleagues” could portray themselves as protectors of the victims—older brothers who would defend their younger siblings from the bullies of the world. As Bishop (now Cardinal) Robert Mc Elroy said at one USCCB dialogue event, Catholics need to take up the fight against “the scourge of anti-Islamic prejudice.”

However, as anyone who is acquainted with recent history ought to know, Islam is hardly a defenseless younger brother. The number of Muslims in the world dwarfs the number of Catholics. And Islam is far more a victimizer than a victim. Anyone who doubts this ought to consult Raymond Ibrahim’s detailed record of the persecution of non-Muslims by Muslims in recent years. Yet, despite this abundant evidence, Catholic bishops seem more interested in protecting Muslims from imaginary crimes than in protecting Christians from real crimes at the hands of Muslims.

I bring up the “hijacking” of the Catholic-Muslim dialogue because what Cardinal Muller calls the “hostile takeover” of the Church by the Synod of Synodality seems to be proceeding by the same method. The Synod organizers are not interested in debating the merits of new movements within the Church, but rather of presenting various dissenting groups as “victims” who deserve justice.

In other words, the aim is not to discuss the pros and cons of women priests or same-sex unions or the LGBT agenda but to convince ordinary Catholics that they must stand with their “persecuted” and “powerless” younger brothers and sisters in Christ.

So just as bishops have come to believe that they have a mission to protect Muslims from “Islamophobes,” they also believe they have a mission to protect dissenting minorities in the Church from “homophobes,” “transphobes,” and every other type of “progressivephobe” (a word which in all probability will soon be added to the lexicon). Moreover, the 24/7 focus on the needs and grievances of these supposed victims deflects attention away from the harm they do to Church and society

As in the case of Muslim “victims” of Islamophobia, these “excluded “groups are presented as beleaguered and powerless minorities when, in fact, they wield considerable power. As is well-known, Pope Francis has stacked the College of Cardinals with progressive prelates who share his own agenda. Moreover, many, if not most, of the top positions in the Vatican are currently held by pro-LGBT and pro-communion-for-everyone cardinals and bishops. It is they, not Cardinal Muller and the handful of other conservative prelates, who are calling the shots.

In this regard, traditional Catholics need to learn a lesson from current political realities in America. In the wake of Joe Biden’s presidential victory, it turned out that the deep state bureaucracy and the Democratic machine had amassed far more power and control over American society than any, except for a few, had imagined. The “hijacking” of America was much further advanced than most had supposed.

Likewise, traditional Catholics should not be surprised when they discover that the “deep Church” of the dissenters wields far more power than they had thought possible.

They also should not be surprised to discover that the supposed “victims” of the Church’s “exclusivity” will turn out to be victimizers. The main victim of the “hostile takeover” will be the Church itself and the gospel revelation entrusted to it. The next set of victims will be all those Christians who have come to rely on that revelation for hope and guidance.

A recent piece in the National Catholic Register puts the matter bluntly: “Some faithful German Catholics are already talking, not of the synodal way, but the suicidal way.”

According to some Catholic officials, the word “synod” derives from two Greek words meaning “to walk together” or “walking together.” Unless it makes a sharp course correction, the current Synod on Synodality may be more accurately described as “walking together over the cliff.”
https://www.frontpagemag.com/a-hostile-takeover-of... (show quote)

========================
I am beginning to fear that there are so many temptations in this world about our true faith in God. God is real. If God is for us who could be against us? Romans 8:31

This is a Jewish university professor at Harvard Business School who experienced the miracles of the Virgin Mary and now a believer of faith in Christ, and Mary the mother of God.

The Truth:
Jewish Harvard business professor turned Catholic thru Virgin Mary's miracle on his presence.

https://youtu.be/1vnoKr3htss

Reply
Oct 21, 2022 20:26:36   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Do You Know Mary, the mother of Jesus?

In the five year old video, of the Jewish Harvard business professor turned Catholic, salvation through Jesus is never mentioned, only Mary. This man cannot be saved by Mary, and is being deceived by demons appearing to him, and claiming to be the dead woman, Mary, who cannot communicate with anyone on earth.

https://youtu.be/1vnoKr3htss

Do you know the Mary of Nazareth, in Israel, and of the Gospels? She was blessed by God, and she occupies a unique place in Bible history. She is an example to all women of humility, of faith in the God of the Bible and of obedience to Him.

Contradicting everything the Bible teaches about Mary, please observe what the rosary says about Mary:

Holy Mary, pray for us...
Queen of heaven
Queen conceived without stain of sin
Ark of the Covenant
Door of heaven
Star of the morning
Healer of the sick
Refuge of sinners
Queen of the angels
Queen of the patriarchs
Queen of the confessors
Queen of all saints
Mystic Rose
Tower of David
Holy Mother of God
Holy Virgin of virgins
Mother of divine grace
Virgin worthy of veneration
Virgin worthy of praise
Powerful virgin
Merciful Virgin
Mirror of righteousness
Throne of wisdom
Source of our joy
Spiritual vessel
Venerable vessel

These things and many more are said about the Mary of the Rosary that differ drastically from the woman, Mary, who the Bible describes as the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. Anyone who has been taught of this Mary of the Rosary does not really know the Mary of the biblical Scriptures.

Look at the example of the lowly behavior of John the Baptist. The Lord Jesus said that John was the greatest of the prophets, but when they asked John, "Who are you?" he refused to take any title or honor for himself. He said, "I am not the Christ... I am not." (John 1:20-21). Each time he spoke he had less to say about himself, as if he were shrinking! And when they insisted, "What do you say concerning yourself?" he answered, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness" (John 1:23).

The case of Mary is similar. She was especially blessed of God to conceive and bear the Lord Jesus, and the angel called her "highly favored" (Luke 1:28). There is a great difference between this statement, and all the titles and honors that the followers and devotees of Mary claim for her today. Just as John the Baptist, if we listen to Mary speak of herself, she says, "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord" (Luke 1:38), and "my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47). Mary did not lie, she said that God was her Savior, which means she was a sinner needing to be saved. She knew who she was, and she said so, in the humblest of words.

John the Baptist, the great prophet, said about the Lord Jesus, "He must increase but I must decrease" (John 3:30). This is also the way it was with Mary. In John 2:5 she moved into the background and told the servants this about Jesus, "Whatever He says to you, do it." They did not claim equality with the Son of God, for they were only human.

If the devotees of Mary really believed her and took her advice, from this moment forward they would be devotees of Jesus Christ, not of Mary. The key to eternal life and the grace of God is the Lord Jesus Christ, not Mary. The Lord Jesus said, "all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (John 5:23).

No one is ever told to honor Mary as divine or supernatural. There is no place in the Scriptures where the Apostles or early Christians prayed to Mary or venerated her. There is no Rosary anywhere in the New Testament. When the Lord Jesus spoke of heaven, He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 14:6). He never said, "To Jesus through Mary," but rather, as His words indicate, the way to God the Father is through Jesus Christ. Do not allow yourself to be deceived, nor allow respect for Mary to become misguided. She is blessed, but she is not the way to God. The Lord Jesus Christ is the way, the only way (Peter’s words in Acts 4:12).

Who is the Mary of the Bible? To answer that, go directly to the Scriptures, not to the Missal, or prayer book, or catechisms, etc. For true believers, there are four texts, one from an angel, one from Mary herself, one from the Lord Jesus, and one from the Apostles, that describe the Biblical Mary. It’s like drinking water right from the fountainhead, instead of the muddy stream. In the Bible we have already seen that the angel said, "highly favored," and Mary replied, "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord." The Lord Jesus called her, "woman" (John 2:4), not "holy mother." The Apostles knew her as "Mary the mother of Jesus" (Acts 1:14), never as the "Mother of God."

In spite of the clear Biblical record, there are people who insist on exalting a humble godly woman and making her something different than what the angels, apostles, the Lord Jesus and Mary herself said she was. Perhaps they are unaware that this is the sin of idolatry, but the Mary that they have fabricated is a religious myth, not the true Mary described in the Bible. It is more than a woman who receives the devotion of her followers, it is a goddess, they have invented and disguised as Mary.

Mary is not the mother of God. No one in heaven, or in the New Testament Church called Mary the "Mother of God," because God does not have a mother or a beginning; He is eternal. God the Son eternally existed in heaven in perfect fellowship and glory with the Father eons before creation (John 17:5) and before He became incarnate. Mary is the mother of Jesus, the human vessel through which God became flesh, and she was blessed to receive the Incarnate Lord, but she did not make God.

She is most certainly not the door of heaven, for this is a phrase that describes the Lord Jesus Christ. Many of her titles were taken from Jesus Christ, long years ago, and given to her by people who didn’t really know Him, love Him, follow Him, or consider Him to be sufficient as their Savior. The simple truth is, they insult and slight the Lord Jesus by taking His titles and giving them to His human mother. He said, "I am the door, by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved" (John 10:9). That is as clear as it can be. Therefore, to call Mary the door of heaven is blasphemy.

She is not the mother of the ekklesia, the church, nor of the apostles, because the church is a creation of God through the Holy Spirit, just as Adam and Eve were created without human parents. The church is the bride of the Lord Jesus Christ, not the daughter of Mary. Any attempt to present Mary as the mother of the church is not "mystic," but is simply untrue.

The Mary of the Bible is not the mother of all grace, because grace is supernatural and it proceeds uniquely from God the Father and Jesus Christ (Galatians.1:3; Ephesians. 1:2; Philippians. 1:2; Colossians. 1:2; 1 Thessalonians. 1:1, etc.). It is not dispensed by humans but received by them, nor is it dispensed by churches or through sacraments, but only by God. People must look to God for grace, not to Mary nor to any church.

She is not the throne of wisdom, because wisdom comes from God. She is not given a throne and has no spiritual wisdom to give others. We can learn from her how to humbly believe God and obey Him, but she does not dispense spiritual wisdom. True wisdom descends from above, from the Father of lights (James 1:17; 3:17). There is no such thing as a "mother of lights."

Jesus' mother Mary is emphatically not the queen of heaven, because the Bible never gives her this title. There is no queen ruling in heaven. The throne belongs to God and to the Lamb, but not to Mary (Revelation 7:15,17; 22:1). In John 14:1 the Lord called heaven, "my Father’s house," but He never said it was His mother’s house.

Those who know the Holy Scriptures know that "queen of heaven" is an ancient idolatrous title from the pagan mythology of the queen of Babylon: Semiramis, repeated in Egypt as Isis, and elsewhere by other names (Jeremiah 44:15-19, 25). According to verse 15 of this text, many of the devotees of the pagan "queen of heaven" were women.

This pagan practice of devotion to female deities invaded the professing church in the 4th century, after the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity and professed to be a believer, making it popular. Instead of being persecuted, Christians were to be provided money to build temples in which to worship, but some pagans erased the names of their pagan gods and goddesses and substituted Biblical names for them. Instead of the Babylonian mother-god Semiramis and her son Tammuz, or the Egyptian mother-god Isis, and her son Horus, they put the names Mary and Jesus on them. This ancient pagan practice of devotion to the mother and her son is not Christian, nor apostolic, nor is it Biblical.

We are not told to believe in Mary, to trust her, or to pray to her. The Lord Jesus said, "Ye believe in God, believe also in me" (John 14:1), He never said, "believe also in my mother." If it were necessary, or even possible, He would have said so. Instead, He taught the disciples to pray in a wonderful way, saying, "Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" but He never taught them to pray to Mary.

Christ said that whatever we ask the Father in His name, will be given us (John 15:16; 16:23). We can go directly to the Father through the Son, but Mary is never presented as a mediatrix or an intercessor. No one in the New Testament ever prayed to her. The true Mary cannot hear our prayers nor can she answer them. She would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent to do so, and she is not, because she is not God. Anyone who prays to her is guilty of ignorance or of following a false religion and of idolatry.

The Mary of the Bible has told us who she is. Look up and read each of the Scriptures, and see what the truth is in the Bible. The angel Gabriel has spoken. The Holy Apostles have spoken. The Lord Jesus has spoken, and this is the truth. Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), but never mentioned Mary in this way. Nothing can be added to contradict or modify what the Scriptures say. But if anyone continues venerating and practicing devotion to the legendary or mystical Mary, then such a person shows that they are not a true believer. They are pagan devotees of a goddess/Demon who uses the name of Mary to deceive people into turning away from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Anyone who has venerated or prayed to Mary, can see from the Scriptures such behavior is not commanded by God, nor is it pleasing to God. Upon learning the truth, they need to confess it as sin, repent, and place all their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone, for there is no other name by which we may be saved. Take Mary's advice and do whatever the Son says. The apostle John says that we should trust in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16).

John the Baptist, too, says to let the Lord Jesus Christ increase in your life, when John says, "He must increase, but I must decrease," (John 3:30) he is explaining how to exalt God and humble ourselves before God. "God opposes the proud but gives grace to those who are humble" (James 4:6).

The apostolic doctrine teaches that there is one God and one mediator between God and men, not one God and many mediators. The one who is both God and Mediator is named Christ Jesus. You Must know Him, and put your trust in Him alone to receive salvation.

There is no other name than Jesus. In Acts 4:12, the apostle Peter announced that salvation is found in no one else than the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, "for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved."

Reply
Oct 21, 2022 22:45:08   #
Radiance3
 
Radiance3 wrote:
=====================
AuntiE, thank you for your post. I want to address this to you alone, and not to many others, who assumed that I am a Devil for being a Catholic. Since 2013, when Pope Benedict was replaced by Pope Francis, I was aware that many things could happen differently, and which I am not happy about it since then.

The replacement of Pope Benedict by Pope Francis, was due to poor health of Pope Benedicts. But that was not true. Truth was not officially reported of course, but main reason was poor health. Fact of the matter is Pope Benedict is healthier and stronger than the present Pope Francis today. But Pope Francis said, he doesn't want to retire but stay till the end.

It was rumored in 2013, thru Wikileaks, that Pope Francis took over of the Vatican was thru the powerful interventions of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George Sorors. i There was a link on that matter, but due to the length of time, link does not work anymore.

I was not happy with the changes of the Papacy since 2013. And much more so now that if Pope Francis has plans to change the structure of the Church as reported in your post, and many other sources I've read as well.

Fact of the matter is I am very distressed hearing all these changes that could happen. I cry and pray every night, but I focus my faith and attention to Christ, and never to the Pope as many people think of. I don't worship the Pope. We respect all leaders of the Church but NOT to worship them.

My Catholic faith raised me with Christ as the Central focus of our faith, and along with the Holy Trinity as One God Forever. That to Whom we pray to.

The accusations of many people are different otherwise. The accusations of many people do not actually and truly represent my worship to God. I spend nights of crying and praying, to God, that I am not mislead and lost in my journey here on earth. I want to join with Christ for the rest of my life. And doing that, my faith stands with Him, along with loving, and caring for all His people. And practicing all the virtues we were supposed to do.

May God bless you, and all who believe in the same Christ as I do.
===================== br i AuntiE, thank you fo... (show quote)

==================
Good evening AuntiE,

I personally requested that all the messages I wrote for this matter is for AuntiE alone. I'd welcome her comment. I think anybody who intercept my message, without my permission has no ETHICS. Freedom of speech does not violate ethics, or ignore the requests of others. Now I implore Jesus, to judge that episode. Not human being. I don't want to prolong this. It must now stop!

Thank you AuntiE for your original message. God bless!

Reply
Oct 22, 2022 04:01:14   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
FYI: Radiance,This is the Faith, Religion, Spirituality Section.

The Private Messages Section is reserved for Private Conversations.
That is its purpose.

The Creator of the Universe understands all things,
including the purpose of an Open Forum.


Radiance3 wrote:
==================

Good evening AuntiE,

I personally requested that all the messages I wrote for this matter is for AuntiE alone. I'd welcome her comment. I think anybody who intercept my message, without my permission has no ETHICS. Freedom of speech does not violate ethics, or ignore the requests of others. Now I implore Jesus, to judge that episode. Not human being. I don't want to prolong this. It must now stop!

Thank you AuntiE for your original message. God bless!
================== br br i Good evening AuntiE,... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Oct 22, 2022 07:16:15   #
Radiance3
 
Zemirah wrote:
FYI: Radiance,This is the Faith, Religion, Spirituality Section.

The Private Messages Section is reserved for Private Conversations.
That is its purpose.

The Creator of the Universe understands all things,
including the purpose of an Open Forum.

===================
Dear Lord, what's wrong with you Zemirah? Do you represent the love and humility of Christ? Your arrogance does not prove that. For this particular matter, I only requested a special message with AuntiE. Do you know what a request is? And you broke in with repeated miles of lecture to me. I know what you are talking about. I am an adult human being. Who do you think you are talking to? I want to make this brief. Please, I don't want to talk to Zemirah. This is a heart braking moment and God is listening. I respect other peoples' faith in Christ, including yours. And if I am wrong dear Lord, please forgive me! I want to end this now, please stop talking to me. Bye, no more of this.

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 11:30:01   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
You have created Groundhog day - all over again.

This is an Open Forum/Public Section - posts and videos of interest are for anyone and everyone.

While taking P324, a junior level Abnormal Psychology course in Clinical Psychology years ago, the professor explained the reality of being neurotic.

If it begins to rain, a normal person will say, "Oh, it is raining."

Whereas a neurotic person says, "It is raining on me!"

Whenever a video is posted on an open forum section, its intent is to be read and responded to by any interested party in the general public/membership.

If wishing to share privately a video with one person, send the video link in the Private Message Section to that one person - that is its intended purpose.

Radiance3 wrote:
===================
Dear Lord, what's wrong with you Zemirah? Do you represent the love and humility of Christ? Your arrogance does not prove that. For this particular matter, I only requested a special message with AuntiE. Do you know what a request is? And you broke in with repeated miles of lecture to me. I know what you are talking about. I am an adult human being. Who do you think you are talking to? I want to make this brief. Please, I don't want to talk to Zemirah. This is a heart braking moment and God is listening. I respect other peoples' faith in Christ, including yours. And if I am wrong dear Lord, please forgive me! I want to end this now, please stop talking to me. Bye, no more of this.
=================== br i Dear Lord, what's wrong... (show quote)

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 12:32:33   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
Zemirah wrote:
You have created Groundhog day - all over again.

This is an Open Forum/Public Section - posts and videos of interest are for anyone and everyone.

While taking P324, a junior level Abnormal Psychology course in Clinical Psychology years ago, the professor explained the reality of being neurotic.

If it begins to rain, a normal person will say, "Oh, it is raining."

Whereas a neurotic person says, "It is raining on me!"

Whenever a video is posted on an open forum section, its intent is to be read and responded to by any interested party in the general public/membership.

If wishing to share privately a video with one person, send the video link in the Private Message Section to that one person - that is its intended purpose.
You have created Groundhog day - all over again. ... (show quote)


Amen and Amen! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 12:48:18   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
TexaCan wrote:
Amen and Amen! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂


Shabbat Shalom [Sabbath Peace], TexaCan.

God bless us every one.

Reply
 
 
Oct 23, 2022 14:30:07   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
Radiance3 wrote:
==================
Good evening AuntiE,

I personally requested that all the messages I wrote for this matter is for AuntiE alone. I'd welcome her comment. I think anybody who intercept my message, without my permission has no ETHICS. Freedom of speech does not violate ethics, or ignore the requests of others. Now I implore Jesus, to judge that episode. Not human being. I don't want to prolong this. It must now stop!

Thank you AuntiE for your original message. God bless!
================== br i Good evening AuntiE, br ... (show quote)

Since when must a person get permission from you in order to respond to one of your comments?

Perhaps you should read the rules to this OPEN forum……..And to take a course on how to successfully debate an intelligent and knowledgeable opponent on any given subject without resorting to personal insults or pulling out your victim card? 🤷🏻‍♀️

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 14:32:01   #
TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!
 
Zemirah wrote:
Shabbat Shalom [Sabbath Peace], TexaCan.

God bless us every one.


MARANATHA!

Every day is one day closer! 🙏🏻

Reply
Nov 3, 2022 00:06:40   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
This is a 3rd article on the "Synod on Synodality" to be held next year, with a clear explanation of its purpose.

Two Cardinals Hold Opposing Views on the Synod on Synodality


The Catholic Thing
Robert Royal, Editor-in-Chief
Monday, October 10, 2022

Many people have been puzzled by the Synod on Synodality – the "walking together" that seems to have some figures in the Vatican (and their immediate allies) highly enthused, but almost no one else. Even many of the Cardinals assembled from every continent in consistory a month ago at the Vatican were still asking what "synodality" means, after over a year of "national level" consultations. We may now have some answers in remarks by two, very different, Cardinals.

Cardinal Mario Grech – secretary general of the Synod of Bishops – recently explained to the Church’s Leadership Roundtable that when it comes to controversies such as divorced and remarried Catholics being given Communion or same-sex couples receiving a blessing:

"What has the Church to fear if these two groups within the faithful are given the opportunity to express their intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience? Might this be an opportunity for the Church, to listen to the Holy Spirit, speaking through them also?"

He has also said that, whether Latin Mass goers or LGBTQ+, "everybody should be listened to" and "nobody is excluded."

Of course, as this attempt at looking fair and balanced makes clear, everybody is not really being “listened” to. Catholics who attend the Traditional Latin Mass – and are actually faithful – have been roughly treated, some might argue excluded. LGBTQ+ "Catholics," meanwhile, have been treated with kid gloves, and – to be (unbrutally) frank – can only by an abuse of terms be deemed "faithful."

The Cardinal has, further, put himself in a perilous position. It’s only prudent to be very cautious about even suggesting that the Holy Spirit may be "speaking" – especially when He suddenly seems to have reversed course. That maybe He didn’t mean what He actually said way back at the beginning of Genesis about "male and female, He created them." Earlier this year, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, appointed by Pope Francis to be the Relator General for the Synod on Synodality, has said about the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, "I think it’s about time we did a fundamental revision of the doctrine here."

It bears repeating that if the whole Jewish-Christian tradition was mistaken about one of God's earliest Biblical statements revealing what we human beings are (prominent figures such as Fr. James Martin S.J. have raised that possibility) then, – almost everything is up for grabs, including whether God has spoken in Scripture and Tradition. Sadly, as a result, it’s even led many these days, who find their identities in sexuality, to wonder whether God even exists.

So it was quite heartening that Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the Vatican’s doctrinal office – warned last week of a "hostile takeover" now going on within the Church Herself, which must be resisted.

Cardinal Mueller is a weighty theologian and unlike many – inside and outside the Faith – who would like to let contemporary obsessions reshape the Church, he insists that the “listening” that must always first take place is to God, especially as he has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.

By contrast, he said, the approach that Cardinal Grech and others take, presents a pattern familiar from Church history:

"That is, the individual experience, as the same level as objective revelation of God. And God is only a wall to you, [on] which you can project your [own] ideas, and to make certain populism in the Church. . . .But it is obvious that is absolutely against the Catholic doctrine. We have Revelation of God in Jesus Christ. And it is definitely closed and finished in Jesus Christ. . . .This is absolutely clear: that Jesus has spoken about the indissolubility of matrimony. And how is it possible that Cardinal Grech is more intelligent than Jesus Christ, where he takes his authority to relativize, to subvert [what is] of God?"

This is the whole crux of the matter, and not only for Cardinal Grech. The synodal "listening" is presented as a pastoral approach to "accompanying" the "faithful." But as we know from recent history in secular contexts, all this is really a prelude to surrender. Dissidents don’t feel "heard," nor do they moderate, through "dialogue." As has been proven over and over, it only emboldens them.

In the interview, Raymond Arroyo put a direct and difficult question to the Cardinal: Why do you believe the pope is allowing this?

I cannot understand it. I must say it openly, because the definition of the pope is, and [based in] the Vatican Council and also the history of Catholic theology, he has to guarantee the truth of the Gospel and the unity of all the bishops, and in the Church, in the revealed truth.

Popes also, of course, have to consider things that are happening at any given moment in the world. But the Cardinal’s response expresses the core understanding – in simple and concrete terms – of what our theology and Vatican II itself have defined as the pope’s role.

By contrast, we have Cardinal Grech – a canon lawyer, not a theologian – delivering this rodomontade [pretentious bluster]. "A correct reception of the council’s ecclesiology is activating such fruitful processes as to open up scenarios that not even the council had imagined, and in which the actions of the Spirit that guides the church is made manifest."

But what’s to fear? It’s not hard for us, almost sixty years after the Council, to imagine where "activating" these "scenarios" and "fruitful processes" will lead.

Cardinal Mueller deserves the final word about what the leaders of the "synodal process" have created, "They have the intention to substitute their own subjective ideas, against the revealed reality of Jesus Christ. . .the [path to the] destruction of the Catholic Church."

Reply
Nov 13, 2022 07:43:10   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Another strong reverse reaction was voiced on Thursday of this past week against the Synodal process that has been invoked by Pope Francis.

https://cathnews.co.nz/2022/11/10/god-synodal-process-mutsaerts/

Dutch bishop Mutsaerts: "God is out of the picture in this damned synodal process."

Thursday, November 10th, 2022

Dutch bishop, Robert Mutsaerts, is questioning the presence of God in the Synodal process, saying the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it.

“God is out of the picture in this damned synodal process,” he says.

Mutsaerts is the auxiliary bishop of Den Bosch in the Netherlands.

Critical of the working document for the Continental Phase of the Synod process, Mutsaerts, writing in Rorate Caeli, says the Synod “process provides a megaphone for non-Catholic views” and is “a path of recognition for those who do not feel adequately recognized in the Church.

“Among those who call for a more meaningful dialogue and a more welcoming space, we also find those who, for various reasons, feel a tension between belonging to the Church and their own loving relationships, such as: remarried divorced people, single parents, people living in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ people, etc.”

Mutsaerts says it is those who agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church are the ones who are excluded!

Concerned that the teaching office of a bishop is being reduced to simply implementing what is ultimately the greatest common denominator as the outcome of a raffle of opinions, Mutsaerts dismisses the listening sessions as “evaporated faith,” the process as “blasphemous” and the Working Document as a “sociological experiment”.

“What is becoming increasingly clear is that the synodal process is going to be used to change a number of church positions, with the Holy Spirit then also being thrown into the fray as an advocate,” he says.

“How unpastoral, how unloving.

“People want sincere answers. They don’t want to go home with more questions.”

Taking his lead from Jesus walking with the apostles on the way to Emmaus, Mutsaerts says Jesus took a different approach to that proffered by Pope Francis’s Synod.

“He listened to the two disappointed disciples who were on their way to Emmaus. But at one point He took the floor and made it clear to them that they were going astray. That led them to turn around and return to Jerusalem.

“If we don’t turn around, we end up in Emmaus and are even further from home than we already are.”

Mutsaerts accuses the Synodal process of being without empathy for traditionalists and has ‘dropped out’ of the Synodal process labelling it as a “process that prevents people from Salvation.”

Mutsaerts is an opponent of Pope Francis’ apostolic letter, Traditionis custodes, that restricts use of the Latin Mass.

In July 2021, he described Traditionis custodes as a “declaration of war.”

Zemirah wrote:
This is a 3rd article on the "Synod on Synodality" to be held next year, with a clear explanation of its purpose.

Two Cardinals Hold Opposing Views on the Synod on Synodality

The Catholic Thing
Robert Royal, Editor-in-Chief
Monday, October 10, 2022

Many people have been puzzled by the Synod on Synodality – the "walking together" that seems to have some figures in the Vatican (and their immediate allies) highly enthused, but almost no one else. Even many of the Cardinals assembled from every continent in consistory a month ago at the Vatican were still asking what "synodality" means, after over a year of "national level" consultations. We may now have some answers in remarks by two, very different, Cardinals.

Cardinal Mario Grech – secretary general of the Synod of Bishops – recently explained to the Church’s Leadership Roundtable that when it comes to controversies such as divorced and remarried Catholics being given Communion or same-sex couples receiving a blessing:

"What has the Church to fear if these two groups within the faithful are given the opportunity to express their intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience? Might this be an opportunity for the Church, to listen to the Holy Spirit, speaking through them also?"

He has also said that, whether Latin Mass goers or LGBTQ+, "everybody should be listened to" and "nobody is excluded."

Of course, as this attempt at looking fair and balanced makes clear, everybody is not really being “listened” to. Catholics who attend the Traditional Latin Mass – and are actually faithful – have been roughly treated, some might argue excluded. LGBTQ+ "Catholics," meanwhile, have been treated with kid gloves, and – to be (unbrutally) frank – can only by an abuse of terms be deemed "faithful."

The Cardinal has, further, put himself in a perilous position. It’s only prudent to be very cautious about even suggesting that the Holy Spirit may be "speaking" – especially when He suddenly seems to have reversed course. That maybe He didn’t mean what He actually said way back at the beginning of Genesis about "male and female, He created them." Earlier this year, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, appointed by Pope Francis to be the Relator General for the Synod on Synodality, has said about the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, "I think it’s about time we did a fundamental revision of the doctrine here."

It bears repeating that if the whole Jewish-Christian tradition was mistaken about one of God's earliest Biblical statements revealing what we human beings are (prominent figures such as Fr. James Martin S.J. have raised that possibility) then, – almost everything is up for grabs, including whether God has spoken in Scripture and Tradition. Sadly, as a result, it’s even led many these days, who find their identities in sexuality, to wonder whether God even exists.

So it was quite heartening that Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the Vatican’s doctrinal office – warned last week of a "hostile takeover" now going on within the Church Herself, which must be resisted.

Cardinal Mueller is a weighty theologian and unlike many – inside and outside the Faith – who would like to let contemporary obsessions reshape the Church, he insists that the “listening” that must always first take place is to God, especially as he has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.

By contrast, he said, the approach that Cardinal Grech and others take, presents a pattern familiar from Church history:

"That is, the individual experience, as the same level as objective revelation of God. And God is only a wall to you, [on] which you can project your [own] ideas, and to make certain populism in the Church. . . .But it is obvious that is absolutely against the Catholic doctrine. We have Revelation of God in Jesus Christ. And it is definitely closed and finished in Jesus Christ. . . .This is absolutely clear: that Jesus has spoken about the indissolubility of matrimony. And how is it possible that Cardinal Grech is more intelligent than Jesus Christ, where he takes his authority to relativize, to subvert [what is] of God?"

This is the whole crux of the matter, and not only for Cardinal Grech. The synodal "listening" is presented as a pastoral approach to "accompanying" the "faithful." But as we know from recent history in secular contexts, all this is really a prelude to surrender. Dissidents don’t feel "heard," nor do they moderate, through "dialogue." As has been proven over and over, it only emboldens them.

In the interview, Raymond Arroyo put a direct and difficult question to the Cardinal: Why do you believe the pope is allowing this?

I cannot understand it. I must say it openly, because the definition of the pope is, and [based in] the Vatican Council and also the history of Catholic theology, he has to guarantee the truth of the Gospel and the unity of all the bishops, and in the Church, in the revealed truth.

Popes also, of course, have to consider things that are happening at any given moment in the world. But the Cardinal’s response expresses the core understanding – in simple and concrete terms – of what our theology and Vatican II itself have defined as the pope’s role.

By contrast, we have Cardinal Grech – a canon lawyer, not a theologian – delivering this rodomontade [pretentious bluster]. "A correct reception of the council’s ecclesiology is activating such fruitful processes as to open up scenarios that not even the council had imagined, and in which the actions of the Spirit that guides the church is made manifest."

But what’s to fear? It’s not hard for us, almost sixty years after the Council, to imagine where "activating" these "scenarios" and "fruitful processes" will lead.

Cardinal Mueller deserves the final word about what the leaders of the "synodal process" have created, "They have the intention to substitute their own subjective ideas, against the revealed reality of Jesus Christ. . .the [path to the] destruction of the Catholic Church."
This is a 3rd article on the "Synod on Synoda... (show quote)

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2022 IDF International Technologies, Inc.