Tags

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


RatToday we go straight to the subject at hand and the Roberto de Mattei article.

In yesterday’s post titled Francis’ Hate Speech (see here), the following passage appears:

The reason that “homosexual marriage” was not specifically referred to in the document was due to the brilliant strategy of the Catholic Synod Fathers from the national episcopate conferences. They were very well prepared to counter the heretical clericalist’s arguments. They continuously forced the heretical clericalists to retreat to fall back positions. One can say that the Catholic Synod Fathers cornered the heretical clericalists on the issue of Holy Communion for serial adulterers. Excuse the digression, but I will go into this in the next post, since it is one of critical importance.

So today we will lay out how the Catholic Synod Fathers trapped the heretical clericalist rats.

The first thing that is critical to understand is that the synod’s TRUE AGENDA was to change Catholic doctrine on aberro-sexual behavior. The reason that the titular theme was about “the family” was that individuals with this aberro-sexual affliction make up a statistically insignificant subset of the general population. By all accounts, it is less than 1% of the general population. But I digress… This in turn made is very hard to not only argue a general rule (doctrinal in this case) that would change Catholic teaching, but moreover makes it an outright absurdity to call a synod of bishops to address this matter. So a SUBTERFUGE (the use of tricks especially to hide, avoid, or get something) was needed, and “the family” was chosen.

On an aside, please note that Catholic doctrine by definition teaches that which is true always and everywhere. Therefore, doctrine addresses general situations and defines norms. That which we termed as “omnium,et invisibilium”. (see here) Exceptions to the general rule (norm) are identified as exceptions (deviations from the general norm) and then treated on a case by case basis. These exceptions must conform to the general principle (norm), but by no means can they be defined as a general norm in and of themselves. The reason being that they are not that which is true always and everywhere. With the aberro-sexual afflictions, what is being attempted by the GENDER LOBBY and the heretical clericalists who promote this GENDER AGENDA, is to present this aberration (deviancy) as a general rule.

Back to the subject at hand…

The next thing to understand is that since “the family” was chosen as the “theme” of the bi-synod, the focus had to be diverted from issues faced by the “the family” per se, to pathologies in “familial structures”. Please keep in mind that the biggest fear of Francis and the heretical clericalists was that the bi-synod would just reaffirm Familiaris Consortio. This is the reason why neither Familiar Consortio was mentioned in the first part of the synod (had to be forcefully introduced by Synod Fathers on JPII Familiaris Consortio/Blue Thursday -see here) nor were representatives of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family invited to participate at the Secret Synod of 2014. (see here) And to finish this point, since divorced and remarried “c” atholics make up a larger part of the respective Catholic and “c”atholic populations (more statistically significant), it was easier to promote the aberro-sexual agenda under the guise of “accompaniment of pathological families”.

As for how this SUBTERFUGE ended, here is what was written in our last post:

Or to put it another way, Francis called a synod on the Family, so the Synod Fathers GAVE Francis a synod on the family. Pathological family, but family none the less.

If you think about it for a second, by choosing the subject of “pathologies in “familial structures” to cover for promoting a aberro-sexual agenda, the heretical clericalists by default admitted that aberro-sexual affliction is a pathology. Chalk another one up to the real “God of surprises”. But I digress…

So now that we have the background, how did the Catholic Synod Fathers play their hand?

First they made it known that the HOMO AGENDA was off the table.

Next they focused on the issue of Communion for public sinners, i.e. divorced and remarried and those living in concubinage.

Next, they made it known that the Kasperian penitential path was a non starter
Here is how George Weigel explains this process: (see here)

At the end of the Synod’s second week, this local-option proposal seemed to be the fallback position of those who had once championed the “Kasper Proposal” on the admission of the divorced and civilly remarried to Holy Communion, but who now realise that the Kasper Proposal is only favoured by a distinct minority within Synod-2015.

What we see is the initial “penitential path” was shut down by non acceptance of a vast majority of the Synod Fathers. Therefore, the fallback position was the defined as the “local option” position. In other words, the local bishops could make the call about admitting public sinners to Communion. However, this “local option” also met the disapproval of the Catholic Synod Fathers. Here is how this option went down in flames: (see here)

The final report does not endorse “Local-Option Catholicism,” ie, the devolution of authority in these matters to regional or national conferences of bishops, or to local bishops or pastors.

The defeat of this post-conciliar novelty then forced the heretical clericalists to go for the “inviolability of conscience option”. And this is where the new FrancisBishop Blase “Eyelashes” Cupich (see here) made an idiot of himself. Wanting to pay back the favor to Francis for making him the Archbishop of Chicago, he came out and claimed that the “individual conscience is inviolable” and should be the defining criteria of whether a public sinner should receive Communion, (see here) to the mirth of pro vobis et pro multis.

Aside from its comedic value, appreciated by all properly formed Catholics and all other rationally thinking people with a minimal inkling of common sense, what needs to be mentioned here is that this was one of the fall back positions at the secret synod meeting of clerics and journalists in Rome in May of this year. (see here) Therefore, it could inferred that the clerical heretics also came prepared.

But unfortunately, this “inviolability of conscience” was so absurd, that it needed to be teamed with an “internal forum” mechanism to make it kosher. Yet, this also didn’t sway the Synod Fathers. Here is how this one ended: (see here)

The final report makes clear that “conscience,” properly understood, is a rightly informed conscience, one formed in and by the truth; which is to say, “conscience” is not simply an expression of a person’s will. The statements on conscience in #84-86 of the final report should be read in light of that affirmation.

Which brings us to that fateful Thursday which Roberto de Mattei reported of the impasse that reigned at the Synod of Bishops and threatened to give Francis a defeat at the Stealth Sex Synod™.

In a post that appeared today at the Eponymous Flower blog, (see here) Giuseppe Nardi does more “fog of war lifting” and discloses how the final “cessation of hostilities” was most likely negotiated between Benedict XVI and the homo-heretical clericalist and former Ratzinger student, one Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. I will deal with this issue in a subsequent post.

So now to explain how the heretical clericalist rats were trapped.

By forcing the Stealth Sex Synod™ to focus entirely on “the pathological family” and the communion for public adulterers specifically, and by forcing the heretical clericalists to withdrawal into their fallback positions, each subsequent fall back position being weaker, not to mention more exotic than the previous one, the Catholic Synod Fathers were able to reduce the final report to an incoherent pile of gobbledygook. (see here)

Here is the pertinent point and I am going to take it step by step:

The Relatio, doesn’t affirm the right for the divorced and remarried to receive Communion (and thus the right to adultery),

This is win for the Catholics. Furthermore:

but it denies the Church, de facto, the right to publically define as adulterous, the condition of the divorced and remarried, leaving the responsibility for evaluation [of this] to the conscience of the pastors and the divorced and remarried themselves.

This is also a win for the Catholics and not just for the comedic value from the intrinsically disordered condition known as “theological schizophrenia”.

How so you might ask?

Simple. By not allowing the Church to define something that is defined by Our Lord, the heretical clericalists have detached themselves from the part of the Faith that comes from the written Word. On a side, just think about what that does for interreligious dialogue with the proddies, whose “faith” comes exclusively from sole Scriptura. But I digress…

Furthermore, the post-conciliar Church has gone down the path of Formal Heresy. Albeit implied for the time being, since the final Relatio is only a consultative document.

Just to remind you dear reader of why this is so, here is what Our Lord said: (Matt 19)

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 it is adultery because:

Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

Think about it for a second, the Church that Our Lord founded now CAN NOT DEFINE and TEACH that which Our Lord DEFINED AND TAUGHT.

But it gets even better. If you read the de Mattei analysis closely, what this new Modernist interpretation of the written Word does is it redefines the Sacrament of Marriage from being an OBJECTIVE ACT entered into publicly and which can be OBJECTIVELY verified, i.e. witnesses, document, etc., into one that is SUBJECTIVE, i.e. subject to the “discernment” of the conscience of the parties involved. Who is to say now that a marriage entered into in the Novus Ordo church was valid? Furthermore, this marriage is non verifiable. This new marriage as SUBJECTIVE ACT can’t be verified since only God can know whether the individuals intended to enter into the marriage.

What this then means is that not only the Sacrament of Marriage, but also that of Holy Orders are subject to the “unknowable and unverifiable” intentions of the respective parties who are entering into the respective Sacraments. This new situation, if it is formalized and promulgated by Francis in the recently announced exhortation, will create a situation that is one of complete chaos.

Please bear in mind that it is one thing to get a FrancisQuickyDivorce which was caused by “etc.” and quite another where it is not known whether the marriage existed in the first place.

Even the protestants will not be able to get onboard with this new “sacramental theology” since even they base their marital theology on an OBJECTIVE ACT, with witnesses, supporting documents and the rest of it.

Therefore, by going down the rabbit hole of their Modernist theology, the heretical clericalists have trapped themselves like the rats that they are. They are cornered and all they can do is retreat.

Can’t wait to see the band aid that they come up with in this upcoming exhortation…

And the response from the “theological structurer” at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

So like the old saying goes, stay tuned sports fans…

Post scriptum

Going through the above process, just think of how much easier it would have been if the heretical clericalists were allowed to go down the “changing” discipline (some value in aberro-sexuality) route as opposed to the “changing doctrine” (Sacrament) route?

Advertisements