ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Alt-Markets blog, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, anorectal traum, Antonio Socci, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), Big Gender, Brandon Smith, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Church of England, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Francis Effect, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C
Today I will make my first attempt at analyzing what actually happened at the Synod of Bishops of 2015. I am jumping in the water, since there are different takes from the Catholic blogosphere and the larger Catholic community that is, was and always will be faithful to the teaching of Our Lord as passed down through the generations by his apostles and the Catholic Church for 2000 years.
I have attached the above video for your review, but please do not view it until you read the below text.
Now to the subject at hand.
First of all, I do not see the final document as a defeat of Catholic doctrine by the heretical clerical class with Francis, the bishop of Rome at its head. One simple anecdotal example of this OBJECTIVE FACT is the reaction of Francis at his homily at the mass that closed this INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED synod.
Think about it for a second?
Does that homily sound like a homily of a man who won?
I will stop here with respect to a deeper analysis of why certain sectors and certain individuals think the opposite, while at the same time giving them the requisite respect to holding their positions.
They could be right, but I doubt it.
Today I would rather like to concentrate on what the document says, when read in a proper manner, i.e. with the “ sentire cum Ecclesia“.
The starting point for today’s subject matter is a post written by Mundabor titled Final Report 84-86: The Text And Commentary. (see here) In the post, Mundabor rightly observes the following: [Mundabor provides comments and emphasis – my emphasis in red)
84. The baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried are to be more integrated in the Christian communities in the various possible ways [let’s integrate whenever possible; let’s also draw a line in the sand, because we aren’t the freaking Presbyterians; hence, “possible” ways], avoiding every occasion of scandal [this “frames” the discussion: every occasion of scandal is to be avoided. All that follows must be read within this frame. This is how you read a text in its context, because you aren’t a heretic].
In your bloggers humble opinion, as is the opinion of the author of the above words, the key word for reading this document according to the “ sentire cum Ecclesia” is the term “avoiding every occasion of scandal”.
Let’s reemphasize this qualifying condition that the Synod Fathers placed on the document for the record:
A V O I D I N G. E V E R Y. O C C A S I O N. O F.
S C A N D A L.
The rest of the Mundabor post explains this in detail while taking you, dear reader through the “questionable” paragraphs line by line.
Confirmation that the above is a true understanding of the “sentire cum Ecclesia” we have obtained from Cardinal Pell. In an exclusive interview for Gloria TV, (see transcripts here), Cardinal Pell make the following statement:
“There is nothing there endorsing Communion for the divorced and remarried. There is nothing there endorsing a penitential process. There is nothing there that is saying homosexual activity is justified.”
Therefore, some of the Synod Fathers that cast an affirmative vote for this document, did so with the explicit understanding that this document…
DID NOT CREATE ANY NEW OPENING FOR COMMUNION FOR DIVORCED AND REMARRIED.
And seeing the those “questionable” paragraphs passed with the barest number of affirmative votes, it can be OBJECTIVELY CLAIMED that if the interpretation was different, i.e. that there was some sort of “new opening”, they would have not received the necessary votes.
Which brings us the next issue and that is this: since the papacy is not a democracy, then can’t the pope do whatever he wants?
The answer to this question is yes and no at the same time.
The pope can do whatever he wants, but what he can not do is proclaim formal heresy. And if you have watched and judged the actions of the present bishop of Rome, you will see that he is terrified of just this situation. He already has a “ticking bomb” problem with the Team Bergoglio affair (see here).
Actually, he is so terrified of being accused of formal heresy, that he even allowed the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Card. Muller to create a novel function at the CDF known as “theological structuring”. (see here)
Which brings me back to Cardinal Muller. In an interview with Salve TV (in Polish with my translation), the Prefect or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith CONFIRMS that which Cardinal George Pell stated above. Here is what Cardinal Muller stated: (see here)
We want to serve with our pastoral help to individuals who are experiencing difficulties. But only on that road that was set out by Christ.
To add emphasis to the above, Card. Muller stated:
A huge role is played here by two papal documents, JPII’s Familiaris Consortio and BXVI Sacramentum Caritatis. This is also the road of the Church into the future.
No ambiguity in that statement. As clear as anything probably ever said in the post conciliar Novus Ordo church.
For those still sceptical, please see here.
Which brings me to Familiaris Consortio and paragraph 84 of the final document. Here is how an anonymous commentator writing to Father Z sees the problem, the problem that is at the heart of whether Francis got away with a “new opening” or not. In paragraph 84, the following is written with Fr. Z providing emphasis and [comments]:
If you look at #85 you will see a block quotation from Familiaris consortio 84 that states that not every party in a divorce is as guilty for it as are other parties may be. This quote suggests that pastors should make distinctions concerning the relative culpability of the civilly divorced and remarried. [NB] HOWEVER, this section left out that part of FC 84 which stated that those who are civilly divorced and remarried must practice sexual continence in order to be admitted to the sacraments of penance and Holy Communion. Again, that part of FC 84 was excluded from #85 of the Final Report.
And the ramification of this “sin of omission” is explained as follows:
[IF] If the Pope decides to publish this section of the Final Report in whatever document he issues, and if he, too, leaves out that section of FC 84 that bars civilly divorced and remarried from Communion, then this section will become magisterial teaching. [Get it?] Will that mean that the civilly divorced and remarried can be admitted to Holy Communion without promising to live “as brother and sister”? In my view, …without the benefit of much time for reflection, it could very well mean that. IN OTHER WORDS the Kasper Proposal has come into the Final Report through the back door.
Now I am not a canonist or a theologian, but just a wretched sinner trying to work out his salvation in fear and trembling, with nothing but his Faith and an advanced degree in an area of a discipline that is commonly refered to as the dismal science, but the answer to the above conundrum MUST rest in the source document.
And I do not mean Familiaris Consortio.
The source document must be the Biblical rendering of the words of Our Lord. Here is what Our Lord says on exactly this matter: (Matthew 19: 1-15 Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes) (see here)
Christ declares matrimony to be indissoluble: he recommends the making one’s self an eunuch for the kingdom of heaven; and parting with all things for him. He shews the danger of riches, and the reward of leaving all to follow him.
 And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan.  And great multitudes followed him: and he healed them there.  And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?  Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said:  For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.  They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?  He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.  His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.
 Except it be: In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.
 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.
 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’ s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.  Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them.  But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.  And when he had imposed hands upon them, he departed from thence.
A casual reading of the above passage, using OBJECTIVE MEANING OF WORDS AND THEIR COMMON USAGE will leave any reader WITHOUT the least bit of doubt as to two important issues that the Synod final document is claimed to be raising, namely:
- The issue of living “as brother and sister” in second marriages is fully addressed. Actually, the Jesus of the Bible goes on to say that in difficult situation, the Faithful should make “ themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven”.
- The second issue is: what constitutes “scandal”? Here is how, according to NewAdvent.Org a “sin of scandal” arises: (see here)
(1) As a general rule the sin of scandal exists when one directly induces another to do a thing which he cannot do without sin, either formal or material, e.g. by soliciting a person to perjury, drunkenness, sins of the flesh, etc., even though the person induced to this act is habitually or at the time disposed to commit it.
So concluding, when taking into account that Our Lord has taught that marriage is indissoluble (i.e. can not be dissolved) stating clearly the following:
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
And seeing as adultery is considered a sin that leads to the sin of scandal, we have the necessary information to assess how to properly read the final document of the Stealth Sex Synod of Bishops. With a “sentire cum Ecclesia” that is.
In other words, this document, OBJECTIVELY speaking, cannot be interpreted in any other way.
Regardless of what passages Francis decides to omit from Familiaris Consortio.
Because if that were the case, Francis would be committing a FORMAL HERESY.
He can lose his throne throwing around such “meaningless words”, ya know.
And a man of his predispositions knows that “Once he decided to attain absolute power, he would never relinquish it”. (see here)
PS On an aside, can someone please explain to those Vatican commentators that when Francis speaks of the bishops with “hardened hearts” he is referring to the Germans. Surely, Francis is not that theologically ignorant to make such a simple mistake.
Surely we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.