FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Breaking News; Kasper, Danneels, Schonborn, Cupich, Wuerl and Maradiaga appointe
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
"Among those attending the Synod due solely to papal appointment are the following liberals or "moderates": Cardinals Godfried Danneels, Walter Kasper, Christoph Schonborn OP, Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, John Dew (a vocal supporter of communion for the "divorced and remarried" long before the current Pontificate), Donald Wuerl and Daniel Sturla SDB (more about him here); Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández, Rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina and one of the Pope's closest advisers and ghostwriters; Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago (USA), and Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto (Dean of the Roman Rota and head of the Pope's commission for annulment reform)."

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/09...nborn.html
So, he is stacking the deck. You know, I wouldn't even mind this so much. He is the Pope, and he must have some personal view of how these questions should be addressed. The Church is greater than any single pope, be he never so popular. And the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church.

I may disagree with the Pope. But these issues are actually not within the bounds of my state in life to determine. It is the Pope's job to determine these issues. He has special graces to deal with them adequately. I can trust that he will not attempt to force the Church to hold any heretical views, though he may stack that deck up to his neck. God will, if necessary, intervene.

However

I find something else infinitely more scary to think of than these clowns. If what some of these Vatican journalists are saying is true, there will be NO Apostolic Exhortation. That is, the Pope will NOT pronounce on the maters as Pope; he will simply offer vague remarks at the conclusion of the Synod as he did last time around. But without a pronouncement by the Pope himself, everyone will do whatever they want to do. This, for me, is a singularly insidious possibility. All opinions on the table; the media will tell the world what to believe; the Pope will say nothing. The result? The faithful will tend to believe whoever is shouting the loudest, i.e. the media. Such a situation, to me, would be positively demonic, and if this is how it goes, I would get out of the city of Rome soon, because God will intervene.

Notice also that the issue of communion for divorced and remarried people has been sort of settled, in the sense that if you are in a situation in which you could conceivably get an annulment and you would actually like to receive communion, it will be possible (I am not actually against this, although I am sure I would be burned at the FE stake if it were possible. I think that there are a bazillion null marriages in the world, and that they are a cancer in the Church, and that the Church must make it possible for those who could receive communion to be able to receive communion, that is, if their marriages lacked the requirements for valid marriage) .That leaves one hot topic left, the place of homosexual persons in the Church. I expect the fireworks to be here this time around.
Oh no! What a surprise!! The pope is being his liberal self again!

From the time of the issuing of that new legislation for annulment I've been pretty much convinced this Synod will be a total, unredeemable disaster. They will probably end up consecrating sodomy (yes, I am kinda pope-franciscan in that I'm rather apocalyptic).

As the late Dom Livieres (RIP) said when he was most unjustly deposed from his cathedra, the pope will have to answer God for what he does.

I'm going to confession over this (God willing), so I hope I don't give the impression I'm simply OK with it, but sometimes I really, really wish ISIS would strike the Vatican.
Another side to the story: a Cardinal was lied to as to why he will not participate in the Synod and Archbishop Cordileone was apparently singled out for exclusion (remember those innocent days when conservative Catholics anxiously awaited for the pope's confirmation of Cordileone?).

To quote Rorate

Quote:The exclusion of these two prelates smacks of unworthy intrigue and power-play in the run-up to the Synod. This, of course, does not surprise us anymore, but it is painful to see new evidence of it almost every single day as we approach October.

And we know this is all a little show. Nothing will be decided on this Synod that was not decided beforehand.
"What Sister Lucia told me: Final Confrontation between the Lord and Satan will be over Family and Marriage." - Cardinal Carlo Caffara

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/06...ld-me.html
(09-15-2015, 11:25 AM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]I find something else infinitely more scary to think of than these clowns. If what some of these Vatican journalists are saying is true, there will be NO Apostolic Exhortation. That is, the Pope will NOT pronounce on the maters as Pope; he will simply offer vague remarks at the conclusion of the Synod as he did last time around. But without a pronouncement by the Pope himself, everyone will do whatever they want to do. This, for me, is a singularly insidious possibility. All opinions on the table; the media will tell the world what to believe; the Pope will say nothing. The result? The faithful will tend to believe whoever is shouting the loudest, i.e. the media. Such a situation, to me, would be positively demonic, and if this is how it goes, I would get out of the city of Rome soon, because God will intervene.

That sounds most likely to me. That's pretty much the post-conciliar M.O.

(09-15-2015, 11:25 AM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]Notice also that the issue of communion for divorced and remarried people has been sort of settled, in the sense that if you are in a situation in which you could conceivably get an annulment and you would actually like to receive communion, it will be possible (I am not actually against this, although I am sure I would be burned at the FE stake

There is no FE stake. There might be a poster here or there that has a stake, but it's not FE's...

-- but I wouldn't mind putting the toxic types in an FE dungeon. I'd have to build one first LOL
(09-15-2015, 12:20 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Oh no! What a surprise!! The pope is being his liberal self again!

From the time of the issuing of that new legislation for annulment I've been pretty much convinced this Synod will be a total, unredeemable disaster. They will probably end up consecrating sodomy (yes, I am kinda pope-franciscan in that I'm rather apocalyptic).

What do you mean by "consecrating sodomy"?
(09-16-2015, 05:07 AM)Share Love Wrote: [ -> ]"What Sister Lucia told me: Final Confrontation between the Lord and Satan will be over Family and Marriage." - Cardinal Carlo Caffara

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/06...ld-me.html

I really hope everyone reads this! The relevant part, my emphasis in bold:

Quote:...I wrote to Sister Lucia of Fatima through her Bishop as I couldn’t do so directly. Unexplainably however, since I didn’t expect an answer, seeing that I had only asked for prayers, I received a very long letter with her signature – now in the Institute’s archives. In it we find written: the final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family. Don’t be afraid, she added, because anyone who works for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be fought and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. And then she concluded: however, Our Lady has already crushed its head.
(09-16-2015, 07:26 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2015, 12:20 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Oh no! What a surprise!! The pope is being his liberal self again!

From the time of the issuing of that new legislation for annulment I've been pretty much convinced this Synod will be a total, unredeemable disaster. They will probably end up consecrating sodomy (yes, I am kinda pope-franciscan in that I'm rather apocalyptic).

What do you mean by "consecrating sodomy"?

I imagine they will try to answer those questions asked in the midterm report in the affirmative (which, btw, by far I wasn't the only one to find them troubling), and somehow they will find a way of giving a blessing to homosexual unions.
(09-16-2015, 07:47 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2015, 07:26 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2015, 12:20 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Oh no! What a surprise!! The pope is being his liberal self again!

From the time of the issuing of that new legislation for annulment I've been pretty much convinced this Synod will be a total, unredeemable disaster. They will probably end up consecrating sodomy (yes, I am kinda pope-franciscan in that I'm rather apocalyptic).

What do you mean by "consecrating sodomy"?

I imagine they will try to answer those questions asked in the midterm report in the affirmative (which, btw, by far I wasn't the only one to find them troubling), and somehow they will find a way of giving a blessing to homosexual unions.

Is this the section you're referring to from the Midterm Report?:

Midterm Report Wrote:
Welcoming homosexual persons

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.

If so, the questions are:

1) Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities?

2) Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

I have a problem with the use of the word "guaranteeing" in 1). What does that mean exactly, to "guarantee" a fraternal space? Other than that, I don't have issues with it, thinking that homosexuals, like everyone else, have gifts and qualities to offer, and should be welcomed.

But 2) -- whoah. To be a "welcoming home" is fine, as is "accepting" their sexual orientation (it is what it is, and isn't sinful in itself), but "valuing" it -- what does that mean? Sounds to me as akin to "valuing" depression or bipolar disorder or what have you. If they're talking about "valuing" it in the same way we "value" other types of suffering, then OK. But I doubt that's what they're talking about. If they leave their language with this sort of thing, that's exactly the sort of ambiguity that's par for the course these days. The neo-cons will interpret it as meaning the valuing of suffering, while the progressives will interpret it as meaning "homosexuality isn't a disorder. It's all OK! Yay! The Church has 'changed Her teaching'!"

None of the rest of this section consists of "questions," which is what you said you were referring to, but the loose talk about "unions" without qualifications is scary. "The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman" -- no duh, right? I mean, have they been questioning that or something?

Re. "Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners." -- that use of the word "unions" is once again problematic. I have no problems whatsoever with, say, a couple of homosexual men who are dedicated to being chaste (by which I mean sexually continent, in line with Catholic teaching), and whose proximity to each other doesn't make for a near occasion of sin, who move in together and offer mutual support, a "sort" of "family" in a way -- insofar as they're simply there for each other, living as brothers, getting on with life -- in the same way people speak of friends as "family," etc. But homosexual sex is sinful, and the use of "unions" here isn't specific enough to mean much. If "union" means what I just described, then I don't have a problem with it. If "union" means what most people use the term to mean -- two people of the same sex not just supporting each other, even maybe living with each other -- but a homosexual couple having a sexual relationship, then it's obviously problematic. And that sort of confusion of language could well be the way they'll play this stuff. They could talk about "unions" with a wink and a nod, while mentioning, in passing, in some other document, that homosexual sex is sinful, and then kick back and let the media do their thing. They can point to what was said in passing as being evidence that everything is in line with traditional teaching, all while the world runs amok, and the Pope is praised as a great, progressive, healing Saint.

And this --- "Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority." -- no mention about how that sort of arrangement is not good for the child? No specific mention of the rights of children to a mother and a father? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and will assume they're just expressing concern for kids who, through no fault of their own, are raised in such a situation. But I find the casual mentioning of this, without an accompanying expression of Church teaching, the importance of fathers and mothers, etc., to be really concerning.

Pages: 1 2