...Meanwhile, it emerged today via the blog of the president of the Polish bishops’ conference, Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki, that Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, outlined two main, immediate global threats against humanity in his intervention.
Echoing Pope Benedict XVI, he spoke of a dictatorship of moral relativism, which is especially reflected in gender ideology and Islamic fanaticism, such as in the various jihadi movements, especially the Islamic State group (ISIS). The cardinal compared these two ideologies to the totalitarian expressions of the 20th century — communism and fascism. Moral relativism, according to the cardinal, breaks down the family and leads to the loss of true humanity.
From gender ideology flows euthanasia, abortion and homosexuality, leading to ruthless practices depriving man of his human dignity. Contrasting with gender ideology that flows from moral relativism, Islamic fanaticism leads to the terrible abuse of the human person.
Archbishop Gadecki said his fellow synod father, Archbishop Henry Hoser of Warsaw-Praga, was “deeply impressed” with the theological and intellectual depth of Cardinal Sarah’s intervention.
“His was not the voice of a prophet of doom, but a voice that flowed from the deep need of the awareness that we know how to react to such events,” Archbishop Hoser said...
17 comments:
That's nice. But he will be ignored. However look at the bishops that Are in the majority. They are calling for the most nutty and insane things that I have ever heard. Female deacons, doing away with confession and just having general absolution, acceptance of sodomy. My god. They need to go and become Episcopalians. This is the result of 50 years of nonsense. Their lack of intelligence, theological knowledge is astounding. Do they actually believe in God?
This fellow sounds rather Catholic. I'm enjoying his biographical interview, by the way.
Why are we not getting this from the English language spokesman and Father Federico Lombardi. Why does a blogger in Toronto need to tell the English speaking world through long and tedious translations what other bishops are saying?
What game is at play?
Peter Cardina Erdo gave a doctrinally Catholic outline of the issues at the beginning of the Synod. That was his job. Pope Francis spoke up the following day and said forget what the President of the Synod said. Cardinal Pell calls for a a larger, more representative committee to write the summary report. The Pope says do not believe in a conspiracy theory. Why not?
The potential for damage is great indeed.
anon-1
I am of the opinion that there is formal schism coming to the Church come the end of October, there is just no way around it. There has been an unofficial schism in the Church for the last 50 years if not longer, and this synod is the culmination of the "spirit of Vatican II."
Is this bad? Of course it is, but it is also a good thing, think of how much good could have been done the actual Church could have done these last 50 years if the progressives had not been in the way.
The truly telling part is going to be which side our Pope sides with, I personally know which side he will side on, you are the company who you keep, and Francis has kept nothing but lousy company these last 2 years.
Here's my prediction, though I am not so clairvoyant as you Fr. AJM!! :)
If formal schism does occur, I predict that the heterodox Catholic faction (Germany, Swiss, etc) will obviously go their own way and allow for all of the changes that they have been pining for. I also think that they will keep the Novus Ordo and that is their liturgical holy grail
As for the actual Catholic side, I predict that a new pope will be elected and a speedy recovery will take place (this is alluded to in approved private revelation) and either a massive overhaul of the NO will occur or an outright replacing it with the TLM.
This does not mean that perhaps millions of souls will be lost along the way, which is the truly depressing part. But this has to happen, it needs to happen, God will not allow this nonsense to go on forever. Athanasius Schneider wrote an amazing little piece over at OnePeterFive on the current state of the Church the other day, I recommend everyone go and read it.
There is talk about schism but I just don't know. The closest thing we have to schism, which some say isn't, but it is pretty darn close is Archbishop Marcel Lefeberve. If a number of bishops got together, to include some cardinals, either on the left or right and did what he did that has led to the SSPX, well then there might well be a formal schism.
To have a schism, you have to have bishops who become schismatic. I don't know who these would be. Do you?
Marcel went into formal schism by ordaining bishops without the Pope's permission. But how many bishops and cardinals and others just went ahead and started doing all sorts of things heterodox without anyone's permission? That's the story of the past 50 years. Everyone invoked "the Spirit" of Vatican II as carte blanche justification for all manner of kooky ideas.
If the synod ends up with a square circle where we declare the doctrine has not changed but the pastoral application is such that on the ground one couldn't tell the difference between a doctrinal change and what we see, then why wouldn't we expect more passive aggressive DE-FACTO schism rather than de-jure schism?
When Vatican II talks of atheism and the subsequent popes warned of moral relativism, they were talking largely of "practical atheism" not the state-run monsters. If you behave as though God doesn't exist, you are a practical atheist even if you continue to show up for ashes and make a show of going to communion.
The problem will then be to see who is actually "the Church" and who isn't. In the last great schism all the claimants had good arguments for why their case proved them to be Pope and the other guys all wet. Christendom was divided by kingdom.
In this case, we might be divided not by who we believe is the Pope but on what we will and will not obey or teach to be the way it is.
So let's say the synod declares that sodomy is OK after all as we must accept all that the LGBTQwerty says is so. Immediately those parishes led by "men" will gushingly adopt the new vocabulary and spend an inordinate amount of money in getting everyone on the same page. But other parishes will act as though they didn't get the memo or don't understand it.
Essentially the game is one of running out the clock. As we see with the LCWR groups, in 20 years all of them will be gone. The only sisters left in the English speaking world will be largely conservative/traditional. Ditto with most of the cardinal and bishops who entered the priesthood before St. John Paul II's reforms began to take hold. If we can avoid a formal schism for just another 5-10 years sheer demographics will take over and make the future an Evangelical-Traditional one.
If we can't avoid a formal schism then it gets particularly ugly as individuals have to see where to go for the sacraments and guidance. The secular world won't help matters except to see which faction is more friendly to the world's powers and interests and which is universally hated.
Well then, what in the blazes would you call what is going on in the Church right now? New term? Hereschism? If there isn't a schism between believing and unbelieving Catholics then I have no words for what's going on.
The only way that a Roman Catholic can be in schism is by joining a bishop who has definitively broken from Rome and the vow of obedience he made to the pope when he was ordained a bishop. There is no other way to be in schism. A Catholic must join a schismatic group headed by a bishop in schism with Rome. The Eastern Orthodox is one example but there are others.
So...provided a bishop doesn't break from the Pope, great leeway is allowed as to actually implementing the Pope's wishes, right? After all, that's how we get the very liberal German and Dutch churches doing their things, right?
What makes them think turn-about won't be fair game?
Suppose the Pope does the unthinkable and declares morality to be relative to local "pastoral situations" invoking the "because mercy now shutup" penumbra clause to the Gospel prohibition of adultery and sodomy.
Like any act of other Pontiffs who have made bad decisions or heretical statements, the smart thing would be to merely ignore it and run the clock out, like St. Athanasius, waiting for a more favorable emperor and pope to reinstate sanity.
Thus no formal schism, just more of the same?
Jus, I hope you are not advocating breaking away from the papacy as this is what constitutes schism which is different from error or heresy.
The only way for a Catholic to be in schism is to join a breakaway bishop who has been declared in schism. The Eastern Orthodox would be the best example but there are others. Protestantism is another. Martin Luther was a mere priest. I'm not sure how many Catholic bishops joined him, but they would be schismatic although their initial concern was with errors in the Holy See concerning the sale of indulgences and rampant immorality in the political papacy and bishops of the day.
No I am absolutely not seeking schism against this or any other Pope. I totally get what you said about formal schism. I also believe that outside of the Church there is no salvation (for those once in the Church) and that outside of the charism of Peter's successor we really have no chance....
My point was that it's better to be a 'slow to obey' Catholic than a quick to be damned schismatic.
In St. Athanasius' time he got exiled 5 times and called before a dozen councils and synods by various Church bodies. Occasionally he was banished by them.
What saved him was inevitably the emperor dying or one of the church factions dying out rather than changing their minds. The whole Arian heresy history is very relevant as it doesn't seem as though people readily change their minds once committed to a given moral course of life. So inevitably the Church stays the course not by 'winning' some argument but by just running out the clock on the other side.
Thus if the synod or Pope were to declare morality to be relative *in the name of mercy/staying hip and cool for the 'in' crowd and avoided a general Western led persecution of the Church.... the smart thing would be to keep calm and slow peddle everything. Don't leave the Pope or Church. Don't sign up with some bishop or group of bishops...just slow peddle everything while waiting for saner people to take up the reins of authority....
I think the legalities of what could occur would be based on the idea that the pope would cease to be pope when he promulgates heresy. At that point, he will have deposed himself in the eyes of God. A group of bishops would arise in an imperfect council to recognize that he has deposed himself, and a new conclave would be convened to select a new pope. To follow the deposed pope after such an event would constitute a schism.
It is plain that such an event would not constitute a schism on the part of the people who stay faithful to the teachings of Christ. It will have been the pope who divested himself of the papacy by attempting to teach error or allow an erroneous practice. Thereafter, to continue following such a former pope would be schism (and since he'd be teaching heresy, it would also be heresy).
Whatever happens, we know that God will see us through, even if it is difficult. As tempting as it is to hope that something definitive happens and that what I've written above comes to pass, with our limited conception of things, it is best to let God sort it out. We just have to be sure that we are prepared to stay on the side of right, even if it means that we might no longer have a Mass or even a priest or bishop nearby.
What Marc says that if a Pope commits heresy then he is no longer Catholic and cannot hold the office of Pope appears to be correct from what I have read on the subject. It doesn't appear likely - although still possible if he receives enough pressure from those who appear to have promoted him - that Pope Francis will go to the point where he could be declared a heretic but if he did and was declared so then, yes, those who continued to follow a deposed Pope would be in schism with the Church.
I also agree with Anonymous at 10.59 am. I wonder how the Church can continue to limp along in the present way with so much divisiveness and with the breakdown in Catholic moral teaching by some sections of the Church. I can only think that at some point in time, when God so wills it, that a Pope may, like the Pied Piper, lead the liberals out of the Church and set up one to their own liking. If that doesen't occur then there may well be a chastisement that falls upon the world that causes people to mend their ways and turn back to God and to be again faithful to the 10 Commandments insofar as it is possible for mankind which is fallen.
As regards the Synod - who initially called it? I thought it was a synod on the Family yet it seems to have deteriorated as a free for all with all manner of liberal ideas being touted now.
Jan
Fr. M,
Your post at 2:53 PM makes no sense.
Jusad,
Thankfully God's judgement exists independently of your own opinions. I wish I believed in the same legalistic, attendence-taking God you do.
I am wondering how priests are going to get on in this new age of mercy. If Fr A is in the Diocese of Bishop Tolerant who has a well-known benefactor called Sid who is on to his fourth relationship - he's had three annulments and the fourth "wife" he is living with. She is in actual fact a transvestite. He also has a homosexual son from his 3rd "marriage". It's a special day for Sid and his family and they have paid a very large stipend to have Mass offered for their family, so they all want to actively "participate" in the OF of the Mass: Sid and his "wife" want to do the readings and his son the practising homosexual wants to bring up the gifts for the offertory. However, there are still Catholics attending the parish and they are scandalised by Sid and his family. What would Fr A have to do? Would he have to obey Bishop Tolerant or would he turn down Sid's request to avoid the few remaining Catholics in his parish being scandalised?
As things move along the above scenario may not be all that far fetched, especially for parishes in Hollywood and other places.
Jan
I think I understand what the Pope is doing and it is not intentionally harming the Vhurch. I think he is giving the heretics their day to let them openly state their positions, arguments, and objectives. He is shushing Pell and others to allow the boil to swell and be dealt with. This is dangerous for many reasons. I hope that his faith in the intercession of the Holy Spirit is not actually testing It and risking even greater punishment.
Post a Comment