Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Mopping Up IIToday we pick up with the theme of the HIDDEN AGENDA of the Synod of Bishops that was called by Francis.

In a series of posts since the end of the Secret Synod of Bishops of 2014, we have been examining the hypothesis that a HIDDEN AGENDA was the reason for calling the two part Synod of Bishops in the first place and then tried to identify that HIDDEN AGENDA. Here is our conclusion from the The Three Paragraphs post that was published on 18th of December 2014. (see here) Here is the relevant summary that appeared in yesterday’s post with the relevant part pertaining to today’s subject matter emphasised:

With this new information, we have been able to posit three underlying facts about the true agenda of Synod and why it was called, namely;

1) Francis called the Synod to engage in a “re-branding exercise” of Catholic teaching,

2) the Synod of 2014 had very little if anything to do with “The Family” and had everything to do with a hidden agenda relating to “communion for divorced remarried” and “changing teaching on homosexuality” and

3) upon closer examination, the issue of communion for divorced remarried was a red herring and the Synod of 2014’s true agenda was to change the Church teaching on homosexuality.

In yesterday’s post, we outlined the new information that confirmed that the above  is a correct conclusion for the following two reasons:

1) The three paragraphs dealing with the aberro-sexuals issue in the Relatio post disceptationem and the one paragraph that eventually appeared in the Final Relatio had to be forcefully inserted into those documents by the Synod Manipulators by a DIRECT ORDER OF FRANCIS against the will of the Synod of Bishops,

2) Cardinal Burke confirmed that when the issue of aberro-sexuality was raised at the Secret Synod of Bishops in 2014, the Synod Father’s position was that “homosexuality had nothing to do with the family and that one would need to convoke a own Synod if one wanted to tackle this problem”.

Therefore, the paragraph pertaining to the above issue should have been dropped. This would have been the “expected” normal course of the proceedings. We know that this last statement is true from another interview given by Cardinal Burke where he states the following (see here): [emphasis added]

It’s very confusing. I have taken part in, I think, five synods, and in every synod, except this one, in which I took part, a proposition – in this case, a paragraph – which did not receive the necessary two thirds vote was simply eliminated; it was not published, and did not become part of the document of the synod.

So what we have above is the positive case for why the conclusion contained in point number 3) is correct.

However, one could say that there were three paragraphs that did not receive the required vote, but still included in the Final Relatio? One of those could be behind the TRUE AGENDA of Francis and the Synod Manipulators. The other two paragraphs dealt with the issue of “communion for serial adulterers”.

This is a true statement.

It is exactly this issue, i.e. the issue of “communion for serial adulterers”,  that was dealt with in the post Francis: “Showing a Leg”, (see here) and here is how we concluded it: [emphasis added]

However, after a careful analysis of the process to date, it would appear that the “cdr” [Ed. note: communion for diveroced and remarried] is not a real concern. The argumentation is explained in the above text. And just to make the final argument, we can assume that this to be the case from two before unmentioned facts. First is the comment by Francis made to cd. Meisner in the above cited interview that:

Furthermore, when there are open theological questions, it’s up to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give detailed responses“.

And we know what cd. Muller’s position on this matter and corroborates the Francis position. (see here). Therefore, it is really a non issue, however a non issue that is generating by far the most debate post Shameful Secret Synod of 2014. Given the argumentation above, it would appear that that the issue of “communion for the divorced remarried” is analogous to the “leg” of the ball carrier who shows it to the would be tackler, only to pull it away as soon as the tackler commits himself to reaching for that leg.

Given that the above was the state of play on the 14th of December 2014, there now appears further corroboration that what is written above is a true statement and a correct conclusion has been drawn from our analysis!

The corroboration comes from Sandro Magister via the Fr. Z blog in a post titled: Is Pope Francis turning away from Kasper and to Caffarra? (see here) In the post, we read as follows: [emphasis added]

This does not resolve anything,” Pope Francis has said with regard to the idea of giving communion to the divorced and remarried. Much less if they “want” it, demand it. Because communion “is not a badge, a decoration. No.”

In his latest big interview Jorge Mario Bergoglio threw cold water on the expectations for substantial change in the doctrine and practice of Catholic marriage, which he himself had indirectly fostered:

Overblown expectations,” he called them. With no more references to the innovative theses of Cardinal Walter Kasper, which he had repeatedly extolled in the past but now seems to be keeping at a distance.

So what does the above tell us?

First, it provides confirmation of the information that card. Meisner provided about the position of Francis on just this issue. Please recall that this information provided by card. Meisner appeared on the 24th of December 2013. The post was titled Card. Meisner cites Pope Francis: No Communion for divorced, remarried. (see here) Now also please recall that this was the purported position of Francis that was known at least 3 months before the February “Secret Consistory of the 22nd of February 2014 when Kasper threw down his “theology done on the knees”. (see here)

So then the question that seriously needs to be answered is this:

why would Francis call for a Synod on the Family, in which he intended to change the teaching on communion for serial adulterers, if Francis had no intention of changing either the doctrine or practice in this area?

One also needs to follow up by asking not only why a rational man would seek to make a change that in his own words “… does not resolve anything.”, but also why that man would intentionally create a massive crisis within the Church through the introduction of a “premeditated diabolical disorientation” of the Faithful?

The short answer is that a rational man wouldn’t.

But as we have witness, Francis did call a Synod of Bishops that had nothing to do with either “the Family” or the “change in doctrine/practice for communion for the divorced remarried”, creating a crisis in the process and is allowing this crisis to fester. So this leave one asking: what was/is Francis really up to?

The only rational explanation of what Francis was/is up to is that the REAL AGENDA of the Synod of Bishops in both 2014 and 2015 is the issue of changing Church teaching on aberro-sexuality.

It is only this explanation that makes any logical sense and therefore MUST be the HIDDEN AGENDA that is behind this two part Synod of Bishops, the second part of which will begin in 187 days from this past Wednesday.

It really can’t be anything else!

Advertisements