The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?editor
Blogger Dominie Mary alerted me to a best-selling book on Amazon, which I think is worthy of our attention. Here’s the advertising blurb…
Intrigue or inexperience? Did key leaders of the recent Extraordinary Synod of Bishops try to manipulate the outcome to support a change in Catholic practice and perhaps in Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage and same-sex activity? Did they undermine Pope Francis’ vision of an “open” discussion? Critics claim Cardinal Baldissieri, the man Pope Francis trusted to oversee the Synod’s discussion of family issues, along with some of his associates, tried to predetermine the outcome of the Synod’s deliberations and its documents. Supporters say Cardinal Baldissieri was inexperienced at running a synod and any missteps were innocent mistakes. International reporter and analyst Edward Pentin investigates the allegations, accusations, and facts surrounding the controversial meeting of select bishops of the world. “An absolutely fascinating account of Synod 2014, especially the machinations surrounding it.” Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, Archbishop of Durban, co-president of 2015 Synod on the Family Source
Comments invited, in the spirit of the warnings from Our Lady at Akita, Japan in 1973, that we would soon see “Cardinals against Cardinals and Bishops against Bishops…”
This issue is also quite well dealt with in the August-September 2015 issue of Christian Order which can be bought for £3.50 from:
56 Tavistock Place
London WC1H 9RG UK
The article provides a very illuminating read.
That book looks to be a very good read and it’s great that it can be purchased on Kindle.
Here’s my answers to two questions raised in the book as advertised:
Q Did key leaders of the recent Extraordinary Synod of Bishops try to manipulate the outcome to support a change in Catholic practice and perhaps in Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage and same-sex activity?
A Yes, without a doubt. Kasper leading the way.
Q Did they undermine Pope Francis’ vision of an “open” discussion?
A No. I think the Pope was in on it, he wants the liberals to win the arguments.
Incase anyone hasnt seen it, check out the video in this link to Rorate Caeli:
Some of it is in English, some Polish. There are opposite language subtitles to contrast with whatever language is spoken, so the viewer can always folllow it.
It features prelates (Burke, Schneider, Lenga) and polish professors speaking quite bluntly about the synod and the crisis in the Church.
Its about 40 minutes, but I thought it worth the watch.
Archbishop Lenga: “I think there is no spirit of the Gospels nowadays. Therefore there is no great message in what the high-ranking hierarchs say.There is no great power in it. It is only a bunch of beautifully spoke words, but there is no truth in it”.
That really is “explosive” – or what I’ve viewed so far. Thank you for posting the link. I’ve taken the liberty of copying the embed code to post the video here, although it’s worth visiting the Rorate website link to read the quotes – who was it prophesied that we would see “bishops oppose bishops, and cardinals oppose cardinals”? This is what we are witnessing on that video. The brave bishops exercising true charity in pointing out the errors being peddled by their brother bishops. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for them!
Really good link and hot video Thanks for that.
Explosive! I agree Editor and Gabriel Syme, that is only way to describe the video link.
It is enough to make the angels weep about how deep this crisis is within the Catholic Church. How far will prelates continue to ignore the warnings from Our Lady at Fatima and again at Akita.
I agree, the video is dynamite and “enough to make the angels weep” – well said.
As for “how far will it go”? We have the vision of the Bishop dressed in white from Fatima. I think it will go to the bitter end before the pope, probably this one, looking at the geo-political situation right now, consecrates Russia. He’s so blind that it will only hit him when things are absolutely at rock bottom.
This is a report from the Daily Mail so treat with caution, because how can anyone “marry” and not be permitted the marital act, if married couples are to be open to children. So it could be typical journalists blab.
I wouldn’t believe anything I read in the Daily Mail, it is gutter journalism at it’s worst.
This point has been covered above by other bloggers pointing out that, no matter the source, if what the source reports is true, what difference does it make? If the Daily Mail ran a first class report on the life of my favourite Saint, Therese of Lisieux, I wouldn’t condemn it just because it appears in the Daily Mail.
Frankly, I can see no difference between any of the papers – including (but not exclusively) the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Scotsman, the Herald (which published lies about me without having the courtesy to check the allegations with me first), The Times (which also published lies about me, this time on two consecutive days, the second article a regurgitation of the first) … So I really don’t “get” this dislike of the Daily Mail in particular. I don’t trust any newspaper – I read them all with a sceptical eye and that way I’m not fooled by any of them!
I must say I was very pleased when someone, can’t remember who (the Joseph Rowntree Foundation perhaps) put in a Freedom of Information request to the relevant Government (UK) department, to find out how many large families were on benefits, given the constant stream of large families featured in the Daily Mail as benefit scroungers. The impression was given that there must be thousands such families. Turns out there were only 123 (I think I’m right in saying) across the entire UK – that’s fewer families than live in my street!
So, yes, they’re engaged in “gutter journalism” of one kind or another – but so are the rest, I think I’m safe in saying… if only because I’m in Glasgow and you’re in Edinburgh 😀
No, I agree with you wholeheartedly about not, as it were, shooting the messenger. If a fact is a fact, it is a fact and contra factum non valet argumentum.
That said, the mass media–and both the last and the coming Synods demonstrate this, as indeed does the election of Pope Francis–is a major problem for the Church. The media in general have evolved in the Western so-called democracies as subtle het highly effective forms of thought control which allow elities–visible and invisible–to hold sway.
I agree with you. Britain’s press is thoroughly loathsome, but The Daily Mail is to my eyes somehow darker than the rest.
Darker than The Sun, The Daily Mirror, the Sunday Sport etc? Not in my eyes. You couldn’t put the width of a cigarette paper between any of them.
Spot on. I should have included The Independent on my list. I’ve had to lodge complaints with the Press Complaints Commission about the falsehoods in the Sunday Times, The Times and The Independent, and in each case my complaint was resolved as a result – although never to my complete satisfaction. In fact, The Times promised to remove factually false information from their archives, but a journalist told me (about two years later) that the information was still there. Scoundrels one and all.
Since any time the Daily Mail has included li’l ole me in their reports they have telephoned for a comment and quoted me accurately, I happen to think they’re OK in that way and, in fact, more honest than the others. Certainly, they can’t be trusted in their portrayal of those whom they consider to be “benefit scroungers” (i.e. anyone on benefits!) but, as far as their treatment of yours every so humbly truly is concerned, they’ve been fairer than all of the “quality” (yeah right) papers put together.
Maybe not. But the Mail seems worse to me, perhaps because I always think of it as masquerading under a pretence of decency.
Of course, they only survive, all of them, because there are peoplevwilling to buy them. It is a vicious circle.
I got my hands on this book on the day it was published and read it from cover to cover.
My overall reaction was one of disappointment. There was very little in the book which I had not already learned from other sources, and I am almost always reluctant to take anonymous sources at face value.
The most valuable thing about the book from my point of view is a quotation from John Rist, classical scolar and philosher, and sometime Regius Professor of Classics in the University of Aberdeen (when Aberdeen still had a classics department). He speaks aboit the failure of senior churchmen to understand the logic of revolutions whose soft aspect is very quickly followed up by a much harder aspect. Examples he gives are Vatican II and Humanae Vitae (or the reaction to it), and Francis’s election followed by the Synod in question. Rist is a man who never loses sight of the big picture.
Much more significant than the book itself, in my opinion, is who published it. For Ignatius Press to have come out with something like this says a great deal about how conservative American Catholicism views Pope Francis.
At a wild guess, I’d say Prog is referring to the book which is the subject of this thread: “The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?” There’s even a picture of the book at the top of this page…
You really are, Sugar Plum, the quintessential “dumb blonde” – now don’t go accusing me of sexism now, like that daft lawyer who went crazy when another lawyer on a professional website said she looked “stunning” in her photo, accusing him of every feminist crime under the sun; “sexism” was only the beginning. Well, anybody who wants to tell me I look stunning will be unable to shake me off for the foreseeable future. Trust me. Insult? Let me have that kind of insult any day – by the ton! 😀
Well, I don’t read very much and I’m certainly not going to plough my way through any book until I know the credentials of the author. Does anyone know? Or am I even dumber (editor) to have missed it?
I don’t know anything about the author or the book, but I’ve just asked a “dumb” question on the General thread, so I’m expecting to be labelled “dumb” when editor reads it . That’ll make two of us “dumb blondes” – LOL !
Pope Francis has, in effect, done a bit of Pre-Synod Rigging himself by his recent “streamlining” of the annulment process. The possibilities for Episcopal abuse under the new system are very great indeed, as will doubtless be made manifest in the short rather than the long term. As I said before, it is undermining Catholic moral teaching by the back door.
I cannot help equating Pope Francis with Honorius I in this matter of weakening Catholic doctrine. While stating that the Teaching cannot change doctrinally, Francis gives the impression that things can be altered pastorally, a contradiction if ever there was one. Honorius did something similar with the Monothelite heresy when he commanded not only the proponents of the heresy to be silent, but also the orthodox who challenged them, thereby permitting Monothelitism to trouble the Church a lot longer than it should have.
For his compromise with error Honorius was condemned by the 6th General Council, a condemnation confirmed by his successor, Pope St. Agatho as well as by Agatho’s successor Pope Leo II, who wrote in his letter to the Council Fathers: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
Now, Honorius did many good things for the Church and was by all accounts a Pope of genuine good faith. As Supreme Pontiff, however, his duty was to declare formally against heresy, not compromise with it. For that grave failing he was condemned by a number of his successors and several Councils over many centuries. In light of this precedent, I wonder how future Popes and Councils will judge Francis!
Here’s the link for anyone who wants to read more on the Honorius controversy: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
Thank you for this. Your observations are a tonic in themselves and a timely reminder of the sheer force of truth over error.
Yes, truth will always triumph in the end, especially in the Church. No matter how bad it gets and how bleak things look in this crisis, Our Lord is still in charge of His Church and He will restore the Faith in due time. When He died on the Cross there were many around who thought everything was lost, all their dreams shattered, yet we know that this was precisely the moment of triumph and of the restoration of all things in Christ. The same will happen again just when it seems that the Mystical Body has succumbed to its wounds and died.
In the meantime, we have to bear with such scandals as Pope Francis’ intention to address the UN on the “cry of Mother Earth” and other such pathetic manifestations of cowardice and self preservation. Sad to say that it is Our Lord’s more intimate friends who are today causing Him the greatest pain by their “spiritual worldliness”. We may only hope that the Shepherds will very soon come out of their hiding in the Upper Room to preach Christ once more, and Him Crucified. That’s why devotion to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart must be at the forefront of this warfare with the powers of darkness. Our Lord has promised the triumph to her, and it is certain.
Here’s an angle on the recent changes to the annulment process that hadn’t occurred to me – although opinion is divided on The Remnant blog.
Despite my previous post from The Remnant not having stirred anyone to comment, I thought I’d post this nugget from the Catholic Herald. I thought that engaging in a civil marriage (considered by Cardinal Schonborn an improvement on cohabitation) actually worsens the sin because it is making more permanent, the state of sin in which the couple are living. Haven’t the time (or energy!) too look for a source but I’m sure that is the teaching of the Church.
And I’ll say nothing about his approval of “stable” same sex unions.
Any opinions on this?
Look above your last post: who’s the dumb blond now……..?
Oops! I’ve just corrected my mistake. My are we touchy these days. Anyone would think I’d called you a dumb blonde or something, as if I would… did I ? Once? Only kidding, I’m sure I was …. at the time … 😀
It’s not surprising that all the comments on Church Militant agree with their take on the SSPX – they ruthlessly delete any contrary views. Repeat “offenders” are banned quicker than MV can straighten his wig. It’s like an online version of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing ‘Old MacDonald had a farm’.
What is just astonishing about Michael Voris is that he unthinkingly repeats the “obedience” mantra. He appears to have no idea of the crucial distinction between true and false obedience. He really is very poorly educated in the Faith, and is a real and present danger to souls, as evidenced in the same ignorance spewing forth from his blog commentators. And I do know that he ruthlessly deletes any “opposition” – here’s a comment from someone who was deleted on the Voris blog, which I’ve copied from The Remnant blog, emphasis added by me…
Julius Gorzkowski • 16 hours ago
I’ve just had the following comment removed from CM.com under their latest Vortex:
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has obviously incorrectly evaluated the Society by stating that there are “no weighty reasons” to deny them and in the meantime they should be accepted “as they are.” The pope has obviously not watched the latest FBI as he has given these schismatics sacramental faculties.
At least here it’s not considered offensive. END.
So, that very mild comment was considered unsuitable for the CM blog. WOW! Incredible.
Anyway, about your concluding sentence: I’ve often wondered about that. DID ‘Old MacDonald’ really HAVE a farm? 😀
I have just posted a fairly lengthy comment on CM.com which is awaiting moderation. It will be very interesting to see if it gets published. I have my doubts!
I hope you copied it to post here. Voris should not be allowed to get away with such censorship. Censoring daft trolls is one thing, but it’s a crime to suppress serious comments. Even yours 😀
Oops! I didn’t copy and paste them here before posting there. I’ll go have a wee look and see if they are still visible.
I was able to find my comment under my Disqus profile – it was headed “Removed,” so has clearly been banned by CM. That site is evil, and I do not say that lightly.
Here’s the comment they didn’t like:
“It is manifestly unjust of Michael Voris to continue to assert in the name of the Church that the SSPX is in a state of schism (formal or informal). This is the great danger that lay commentators on social media sites represent in these days of crisis and confusion. The facts do not sustain Mr. Voris’ personal opinion, an opinion he has no business spreading around as though it were the Gospel truth. It is for the Church’s authorities to determine the status of the SSPX in the Church and those authorities have repeatedly stated that the case of the SSPX is not a question of schism but of a fullness of communion, because “they are in the Church” (words of Cardinal Hoyos and others). Indeed, Pope Francis could not have declared SSPX confessions valid for any period of time had the SSPX been separated from the Church, nor could the Pontiff have instructed the Archbishop of Buenos Aires to inform the Argentinian government of the SSPX’s Catholic status if the SSPX was in fact in schism with the Catholic Church. These proofs should be self evident to even the most hostile person, provided that person has good will and is objective.
St. James said that the anger of man worketh not the justice of God. I have witnessed that anger in many forms over many years as a Traditional Catholic journalist. I have seen it in sedevacantists, in liberals and in middle-of-the-road individuals like Mr. Voris. This is not the spirit of Our Lord, His Holy Church or the saints. We are obliged in justice and charity to be truthful and patient with all for the good of their souls. All of us who write about this crisis in the public domain bear a great responsibility before Our Lord for what we say, lest unchecked emotions and rash judgement, sure signs of pride, cause us to harm souls. One soul scandalised or lost by our carelessness will go with us to our own judgement, a frightening thought indeed. I urge Mr. Voris to cease these intemperate assaults on the SSPX and try by some public means to undo the harm he has caused to so many good Catholics who just want to keep the faith in these days of Modernist innovation and destruction. Remember, it’s not the SSPX which has altered the Faith, it merely adheres firmly and respectfully to the Faith held by our forefathers. How can so great a fidelity be called schism in our day?”
No wild guesses required to work out why your post was removed by Michael Voris.
He is obviously smarting from the “beatings” (metaphorical only!) he’s taken over at The Remnant, where they – like you – have destroyed his pseudo-arguments against the SSPX, simply by providing the facts. With a couple of hundred followers gushing thankfully for his “enlightenment”, however, he’ll be absolutely determined, more than ever now, to keep the truth from his bloggers. How very sad. I think, though, that I’ll have a bash at getting a comment on there. As far as I can see, nobody has reminded Mr Voris of the need to discern true from false obedience, so I may take that as my theme. I would say “watch that space” but only because it’s liable to BE a space (marked “deleted” or “removed”) when (take the ) Mickey sees it 😀
I hope and pray that he reflects on the examples you’ve given as evidence that the SSPX cannot possibly be described as being “in schism” but I recall one reporter explaining his sudden anti-SSPX position as being rooted in the fact that a major financial source for CMTV is anti-SSPX … And if that is the case, it’s tragic, for, putting money above truth, he falls into that category of persons against whom Our Lord warned: “if you cannot be trusted with money – that tainted thing – who will trust you with greater?”
You are absolutely right.
I placed my comment on CM to put Michael Voris to the test, knowing already that the good people at the Remnant have many times attempted to set him straight with the facts. The test was simply to discover if he was of good will. He failed that test by suppressing the known truth, which is why I said his site is evil. He knows what he’s doing is dishonest and unjust. I only hope it’s not financial motivation that is causing him to betray truth and charity because that would put him squarely in the camp of Judas Iscariot.
People like Michael Voris are best left to God, who reads the hearts of all. I will not attempt to debate again with this unjust man.
Well, I’ve just posted a very carefully worded comment which has gone into moderation – presumably he has the time to read every comment before publishing. Lucky man! I’ve copied it to post here, just in case it doesn’t get through…
Comment submitted to the Michael Voris/CMTV blog…
It is really tragic to see so much ignorance among Catholics about the nature of the authority of Christ’s Church; worrying to note that the majority have no apparent grasp of the fact that there are limits to papal authority.
I will do my best to word my comment carefully, because I know that posts containing the facts about the SSPX are being deleted or removed by Mr Voris, which, with due respect, is quite scandalous. Nobody has anything to fear from the truth. For my sins, I run the Catholic Truth blog and the only people whose posts are moderated or deleted/removed, are those containing nasty personal remarks, or who persistently ignore warnings not to take the discussion off topic. I trust, therefore, that the comment I am taking the time to write here, will be permitted to remain as a contribution to a very important discussion. You see, when it comes down to it,the crisis in the Church is, essentially, a battle between the forces of Modernism and the SSPX. Anyone who studies the subject in depth, knows that the Society adheres to ALL the dogmas of the Faith without exception, resisting only all errors and heresies, whether from senior hierarchy or a member of the Legion of Mary(!) Just as it wasn’t good enough for Adam to excuse his sin of pride by arguing with God that “it was the woman you put with me”, so it will not be any excuse for us to say “it was the pope you put in charge of us….” at any given point in history. God gave us intelligence and revealed that there is no contradiction between Faith and Reason – therefore, we must always discern true from false obedience, especially during a time of crisis in the Church.
Remember, Our Lady of Good Success, asking Sister Mariana in the 17th century to be a victim soul for the Church in the 20th century when a great crisis would engulf both world and Church, told Sister to “pray that my Son will send a prelate who will restore the priestly spirit.” Now, we’re into the 21st century and – to the very best of my knowledge, the only prelate who turned up in the 20th century to restore the spirit of Christ’s priests, was Archbishop Lefebvre who will, without a doubt, one day be canonised and pronounced a Doctor of the Church. Of that, no serious commentator, can be in any doubt.
Why? Because – again with all due respect – unlike the many poorly formed Catholics today, the Archbishop could distinguish between true and false obedience. He understood that our first obedience must be to the Faith, and if any priest, bishop or pope is teaching anything contrary to the Faith, then we must refuse to accept his error. Just as Catholics in the past had to refuse to accept the errors taught by popes, such as Pope John XXII who taught the heresy that only at the Last Day would the souls of the departed attain their final end, either in Heaven or Hell, despite the belief held everywhere, by everyone and always (Tradition’s litmus test) that souls were individually judged on death and gained their place in Heaven, Hell or Purgatory immediately. Pope John taught this error publicly and only recanted on his death bed. His successor, Pope Benedict XII infallibly defined the Church’s doctrine on this, to put an end to the scandal caused by the false public teaching of John XXII.
Catholics ought to know that there is no guarantee of papal infallibility even when popes are teaching on Faith and morals except when imposing a solemn definition upon the Church (see conditions as set out at Vatican I).
So, it is not schismatic to resist error and heresy. We are not a cult. Our leaders, including popes, are not divine. They are not gods. Above, I’ve given one example out of the many – sadly – available, of a pope teaching error. Now, there was uproar at the time, with critics of Pope John XXII refusing to accept this false teaching and the papolatrists who could not see how a pope could possibly be in error (and no doubt some in between who parroted the nonsensical “I’d rather be wrong with the pope than right with one of his critics” ! Mirroring what is going on today.
No serious scholar has ever considered the SSPX to be in schism, for refusing the grave errors found in Vatican II documents (unheard of novelties such as religious liberty which demotes Christ from His place as King of all the nations, and places His Church on the same level as false religions.) Archbishop Lefebvre knew that no Catholic could possibly accept such a major heresy. In fact, that there were not dozens of Archbishop Lefebvres during and following Vatican II, is the real scandal.
Right now, today, we’re discovering that Pope Francis has named the leaders of the forthcoming Synod on the Family – shocking appointments like Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Schonborn, both on public record with their heretical views about marriage and the family, both in favour of same-sex unions. The buck stops at the feet of Pope Francis. Anyone who thinks we shouldn’t say that or say that publicly, either doesn’t love the Faith or doesn’t understand the key distinctions which include the limit of papal authority and the requirement of Catholics to exercise our true obedience to all authority, including papal authority.
For, it’s the Faith that we must love and defend – not any individual pontiff, particularly one who has publicly caused scandal by his words and behaviour (in the latter category, red noses and fireman’s hats spring to mind.)
As St Athanasius, now a Doctor of the Church, famously pointed out to his followers when he was twice excommunicated: “they have the buildings, we have the Faith.”
And that’s exactly the position of the bishops, priests and faithful of the SSPX.” END.
I now see a couple of minor errors, such as “Sister” instead of “Mother” Marianna, and “John XII” in one place, instead of “John XXII” (which I’ve corrected in this post) what the heck. It’s late and I need my beauty sleep. And how!
It is nothing short of a scandal that Cardinal Danneels has been appointed to this synod.
Agreed, Liberanos. It is, indeed, nothing short of a scandal that Cardinal Danneels has been appointed to this synod.
I have just visited the Voris site and my comment has not been published. I then went into my Disquis profile where I found it marked “Removed” .
There is a clear intention to suppress the truth – that IS evil. Unfortunately, The Remnant have now shaken off the dust, in terms of answering Voris, so I’m open to ideas on how to proceed.
While I was in my profile I scrolled down to see if any other posts of mine have been removed, as I didn’t realise that I could check that until Athanasius mentioned that he found his that way. Indeed, several comments of mine have been deleted from various sites, notably the Catholic Herald. One even on the Catholic & Loving It blog, which is a favourite of the neo-Catholics. I once emailed the administrator to congratulate him on his performance on one of the Sunday morning discussion programmes on BBC (The Big Questions, I think) where he accurately explained Catholic moral teaching on condoms and defended it really well. A lot of good that did me! He, like the Catholic Herald and Voris, doesn’t want “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” published on certain subjects on his blog. Not one of the comments removed had any personal remarks or nastiness in it. The “worst” was a one-word response to the rubbish written by another blogger which read…. “rubbish”!
So, now we know that it’s not that a majority of bloggers agree with Michael Voris on the SSPX but that only those who do agree get published. The odd “I’m not an SSPX person but I don’t think they’re in schism” has crept through the censorship but nothing with any detailed defence of the Society. How that man can sleep at night, beats me. I’m glad I unsubscribed to his videos/emails as soon as he adopted the “no criticism of the pope, no matter what” policy. There, I thought, goes a man who hasn’t the proverbial clue about the root cause of this crisis in the Church, about which he has set himself up as an expert.
Let’s pray for him, that the scales fall from his eyes, or the malice from his heart, whichever applies.
Editor, that was an amazingly clear and accurate post to CM. Actually, I feel sorry for Michael Voris. I believe his original motivation was laudable and I always used to promote CM. I don’t know what happened to him but i would be scandalised if it were financial. Surely not! As Athanasius said above:
“I only hope it’s not financial motivation that is causing him to betray truth and charity because that would put him squarely in the camp of Judas Iscariot.”
That comment really hit me and made me realise that Michael desperately needs our prayers. As Jesus said:
“Anyone who is not with me is against me” or words to that effect. If Michael is disseminating lies (and it looks like he is), then God help him.
I agree with everything you say. It is truly diabolical to see the way CMTV has turned down the wrong road and is resolutely keeping going. Michael Voris and his videos could be doing first class work in educating Catholics about the nature of this crisis, but instead, he is compounding the problem.
Yes, God help him – we ought to keep him in our prayers, but also we must warn as many people as possible to avoid his influence.
This news is a few days old, but I have only just learned of it, via Edward Pentin (the author of the rigged synod book) reporting in the National Catholic Register:
Further to Francis motu proprios regarding annulments, the Roman Curia is circulating a seven page document attacking his initiatives and it has been leaked to the press. According to German newspaper Die Zeit:
the officials juridically “picked apart” the Pope’s motu proprio (papal decree) on annulment reform, accuse the Holy Father of giving up an important dogma, and assert that he has introduced de facto “Catholic divorce”.
Further concerns mentioned in the document are that, despite the gravity of the issue, no dicasteries, including apparently the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as well as bishops conferences, were consulted about the decision
Hopefully this will help galvanize resistance during the synod.
I agree with the comments about that Francis’ own picks for synod Bishops are a disgrace – trying to stack things in his favour. I cant believe characters like Daneels are being wheeled out from the old folks home and dusted down – I can just picture him being wheeled into St Peters Basillica, wearing his flared trousers and flowers in his hair.
Regarding Michael Voris – he has completely lost the plot. He is now a sideshow at best and a liberal trojan-horse at worst (given he consistently attacks genuine Catholic groups while giving Francis & Co a free pass).
This is an interview with the author of the book on the Rigging of a Vatican Synod
Thanks for that video interview – first class.
More synod trouble… Click here to read all about Cardinal Kasper’s continuing efforts to encourage sacrilege and here to read the latest where the Germans have “crossed a new line”. Not half – be braced for the schism to come…
Comments are closed.