09 October 2014

"Let us compromise on everything."-- The Synod at Its Core

Let us call this Synod
what it is: a secretive, manipulated, progressive-dominated cabal, led by
septuagenarian and octogenarian diehards of the conciliar “renewal,” who are
rushing to finish their “work”—so rudely interrupted by Pope Benedict—lest
death release the Church from their clutches before they are quite done.

This article by Christopher Ferrara at The Remnant may be the last thing that needs to be posted on the
Synod against on the Family until and unless the recommendations and apostolic
exhortation are released.  It is indeed
bracing, but we are past the time when we can be dainty in treating with the
modernist cabal seeking to destroy the sacrament of marriage, the integrity of
Eucharistic belief, and the authority of the Church.  The article should be read in full; extensive
excerpts below:

The Secret Synod Freak Show, Brought to You by Pope Francis

by Christopher Ferrara

WARNING: Mordant Commentary. Reader Discretion Advised.

A shockingly blunt title indeed. But as entirely predictable
events unfold in the New Synod Hall—wherein, we are told, all things will be
made new—why should we bother with nuance? After all, we have a Pope who is no
friend of nuance and whose intentions could not have been more crudely
expressed over the past eighteen months of astonishing insults and denigration
of practically all the elements of apostolic and ecclesiastical tradition.
Francis has clearly been preparing for this moment since the day of his
election, if not before, and now it has arrived in all its inglorious splendor.


Beneath all the bishops’ and cardinals’ blather about
“mercy,” “graduality,” “new ways of accompaniment,” and their newly discovered
imaginary divide between the doctrinal and the pastoral, beneath the Pope’s own
blather about perceiving the “rhythm of our time and the scent of the men of
today”—when has a Roman Pontiff ever uttered such nonsense?—we will find the
real theme of the Secret Synod as expounded by its leaders. And the theme could
not be simpler: Let us compromise on everything. Everything, that is, on which
they have not already compromised.

The survivors of the post-conciliar revolutionary cadre who
now dominate the Synod propose the Ultimate Reform of Vatican II: the
abandonment of doctrine through a radical change of “pastoral practice” by
which doctrine is affirmed at the same time it is taken out of commission. The
plan is being hatched in a series of secret interventions stacked in favor of a
pre-determined outcome to which Francis, now recognized by the entire world as
the First Merciful and Humble Pope, will allow only token conservative
opposition. “Everyone has something to contribute,” says Francis, patting the
conservatives on the head. “It gives me pleasure to have debates with
conservative bishops when the arguments are intellectually well-formed.”

Stranger to nuance that he is, Francis has revealed, with
supreme condescension, the ideological essence of the Secret Synod: that the
Pope and the Modernist cabal he has handpicked are adversaries of the few
remaining conservative bishops, who have been allowed to speak (but only in
presentations submitted in advance) because it “pleases” Francis to allow this
“debate,” which will not, of course, deter him from doing whatever he plans to
do—in all humility.

On and on the Secret Synod drones, led by the Pope, his
German progressivist shock troops, and reliably liberal prelates from
throughout the vast realm of post-conciliar apostasy. Take Cardinal Wuerl, for
example. Speaking outside the Synod Hall, he now calls openly for a
“graduality” that would allow all manner of objective mortal sinners to receive
Holy Communion while they think about whether they might, someday, obey the
Church’s teaching on marriage and procreation (as if the generality of clergy
even bother to mention it any longer).

“The reception of Communion is not a doctrine or position,
it’s a pastoral application of the doctrine of the Church,” says Wuerl in
soothingly pastoral tones. The old smoothie is trying to deceive us. The
requirement that one conscious of mortal sin abstain from the Blessed Sacrament
is no mere “pastoral application” of doctrine, but rather a revealed truth at
the foundation of our religion: “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or
drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of
the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that
bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord (1
Cor. 11:27-29).”

But then Wuerl’s deception merely exemplifies the deception
that is the Secret Synod itself. It is impossible to take seriously “pastoral
reflections on the family” by a group of Modernist subversives who have either
failed to uphold or openly undermined the Church’s moral teaching, including
that protector of priestly predators of altar boys, Cardinal Daneels,
outrageously appointed a “Synod Father” by the will of Francis, and that
infamous ecclesiastical termite, Cardinal Kasper, suddenly elevated to high
prominence at age 80 by none other than Francis. We are asked to believe the
ludicrous cover story that the Secret Synod was urgently needed to address
“pastoral challenges” that did not exist a mere 33 years ago, when John Paul II
insisted upon the Church’s perennial discipline, required by the revealed truth
on the indissolubility of marriage:

[T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon
Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons
who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that
their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love
between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.

Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if
these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into
error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility
of marriage. (Familaris consortio, n. 84).

“The faithful would be led into error and confusion” if the
divorced and “remarried” were admitted to Holy Communion. Thus taught the very
Pope that Francis has canonized. Yet that very teaching is now under attack at
the Secret Synod by a cabal that appears determined precisely to lead the faithful
into error and confusion, while leaving those who have already apostatized in
their darkness. The aim of the Secret Synod is nothing less than a “pastoral”
institutionalization of mortal sin in the Church. What else could its aim be,
given its declared refusal to repeat and reaffirm what the Church has always
taught about adultery and other sins of impurity? Why would the members of the
Secret Synod (the conservative minority aside) meet for any purpose other than
to affirm their own longstanding defection in practice from the moral teaching
they will mendaciously affirm in principle?

Of course the Secret Synod is not so secret when its leaders
wish the media to know of the most recent progressivist intervention in the
Synod Hall, pregnant with the promise of radical change. Hence, for example,
the worldwide media were delighted to convey the address of a laughably
oversexed septuagenarian couple, unencumbered by any sense of shame, who
boasted of their 57-year-long sex life, including “the telephone calls and love
notes, the… outward expressions of our longing to be intimate with each other,”
because “marriage is a sexual sacrament with its fullest expression in sexual
intercourse.”  Marriage is a sexual
sacrament? Such is the product of John Paul II’s impenetrable “theology of the
body,” which he left assorted lay commentators to “unpack” like a suitcase full
of naughty lingerie.

The same pair of kooks lauded the example of another family
in welcoming their “gay” son and his “gay partner” to the family’s Christmas
celebration, exposing their own grandchildren to the scandal of their son’s
perversion: “They fully believed in the church’s teachings and they knew their
grandchildren would see them welcome the son and his partner into the family.
Their response could be summed up in three words: ‘He’s our son.’” Cardinal
Nichols told the press “the synod gave them a round of applause.” No doubt
there were tears in a considerable number of episcopal eyes.

Cheap sentiment must trump morality and reason. That is the
“pastoral” leit motif of the Secret Synod. In vain did the London-based Society
for the Protection of Unborn Children protest that “The homosexual agenda is
forcing its way into schools, universities, workplaces and sports clubs. The
last thing families and parishes need is for church leaders to tell them to
welcome homosexual couples.” But the Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children was not invited to the Secret Synod, which according to Francis was
convened to hear “the cry of the people”—but only certain people, whose “cries”
were rehearsed and approved in advance in the manner of all revolutionary

Then there was Cardinal Nichols’s call for what is
essentially the abandonment of the vocabulary of sin: “synod participants heard
today of a wish to tone down the use of terms such as ‘living in sin,’
‘contraceptive mentality’ and ‘intrinsically disordered.’ The suggestion
appeared to have been warmly received.” No doubt the great majority of the
Secret Synod did warmly receive Nichols’s intervention. For the very purpose of
the Secret Synod is to receive the good news of the Death of All Condemnation
in the area of sexual morality and the advent of the Time of Mercy inaugurated
by the First Merciful Pope. Or so the media-assisted narrative goes.

As Francis himself declared the day before the Secret Synod
began, the participants would “search for that which today the Lord asks of His
Church,” so that “we will know how to propose the good news of the family with
credibility.” In other words, the Church’s teaching on marriage and procreation
lacked all credibility before the Secret Synod because she had failed to
consult Our Lord for the latest update. It is long past time for a new


Traditionalists saw all this coming from a mile away: the
Secret Synod would declare itself the quasi-gnostic Revelator of a new “spirit”
that would dictate yet another round of revolution in the Church via a
low-budget scale model of Vatican III that will finish what Vatican II started.
After secret interventions by 70 “Synod Fathers” on October 7, Father Lombardi
summarized the tenor of the proceedings: “From many quarters, however, there
has emerged the need to adapt the language of the Church, so that doctrine on
the family, life and sexuality is understood correctly: it is necessary to
enter into dialogue with the world, looking to the example offered by the Vatican


Whatever Francis’s subjective intention may be, let us not
shrink from recognizing the “door” he has opened for what it is: a portal into
the pit of Hell. In the interview with the liberal Jesuit magazine America, the
liberal Jesuit Francis delighted the world when he declared: “We have to find a
new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall
like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.” As
the moral edifice of the Church threatens to fall like a house of cards under
the Secret Synod’s onslaught, we are reminded of how often Francis’s
accusations against others apply precisely to him.

A challenge to our neo-Catholic critics as catastrophe
looms: If the Secret Synod recommends radical changes, including abandonment of
the perennial discipline of the Church—affirmed by the neo-Catholics’ greatest
hero, John Paul II, only 33 years ago—what will they say and what will they do
then? Will they accept even this in silence, as they have every other
“officially approved” ruinous innovation of the Church since 1965? Will they
reveal that they are willing to accept whatever authority decrees in order to
hang on to their comfortable niches in the Novus Ordo establishment, or will they
stand up for the objective and unalterable revealed truths of our religion and
the practices that have embodied those truths for two millennia—no matter what
it costs them and even if the minority of cardinals who have thus far opposed
the Synod’s direction all capitulate? Will they, in short, recognize at long
last the unprecedented crisis in the Church whose origin was described in two
words by Sister Lucia in light of the Third Secret of Fatima, to which Pope
Benedict so tellingly alluded before his mysterious abdication: diabolical

It was Chesterton who wrote: “The Catholic Church is the
only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his
age.”  But now the very Vicar of Christ
presides over a Synod he explicitly declares will be guided by “the rhythm of
our time and the scent of the men of today.” We have clearly reached the final
extremity of the post-conciliar debacle, and it should now be obvious to every
Catholic of good will that we live in times like those of the Arian crisis. As
Cardinal Newman famously observed, during that crisis—the greatest in Church
history until now—the Faith was preserved not “by the unswerving firmness of
the Holy See, Councils or Bishops, but … by the consensus fidelium [consent of
the faithful].” Then, as now, “there was a temporary suspense of the functions
of the Ecclesia docens [the teaching church]. The body of the Bishops failed in
their confession of the faith. … There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful
Bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion,
hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending itself into nearly every corner of
the Catholic church.”

Yet in this seemingly hopeless situation lies our very hope.
As history teaches, and as the promises of Christ guarantee, the faithful need
only hold fast to the traditions they have been taught (2 Thess. 2:15) by the
authentic Magisterium until the storm ends and the men who unleashed it upon
the Church have passed into history, along with all the bishops and even the
Pope (Liberius) who persecuted Saint Athanasius and a remnant of the faithful
who defended the divinity of Christ in the 4th century.

Barring divine intervention, the members of the Secret Synod
may well have their day. But in the end that is all they will have. Meanwhile,
no matter what, we must keep the Faith. And by the grace of God, we will.

1 comment:

Long-Skirts said...


Nowhere to kneel
No Tabernacle
No candle red
Just marble crackle

A sepulchre
Deathly white
To help good souls
Despair, take flight

That's WHAT they want
That is their plan
Then mock, "You dis -
obedient man!"

But in the depths
Of doctrine deep
Sails the Ship
That will not sleep

Full of disobedient
Obeying Christ
In priests that keep

The Barque of Peter
On its course
Though her bowels be bricked
By a sinister source

Then damn the torpedoes
Will blast through the block
Full speed ahead

No sepulchre whites
Disobedience, despairs --
Only seas of gold Masses
By an Archbishop's Peres!