Southern Baptists, for the most part, believe in the infallibility of the individual “spirit-filled” believer to interpret the Scriptures. They don’t need an intermediary to tell them what to believe, like the Magisterium of a Church or their priestly intercessors.
While these Baptists would decry papal infallibility or the infallibility of an ecumenical council in union with the pope, they believe an a sort of “creeping infallibility” of individual members.
The same thing is happening with the far left take over of the synodal process with leaders in the highest echelons of the Church. To their far left adherents, who want a different kind of Church of the left, they give the air of infallibility that God is speaking through them and their desire for a different future-church. There is a “creeping infallibility” attributed to the movement of the Holy Spirit. It reminds me of the Catholic Charismatic Movement of the 1970’s which claimed the Holy Spirit was behind every novelty of Protestant Pentecostalism applied to the Catholic Church and her spirituality. How can you argue with that!
Those who demand orthodoxy and renewal in continuity are seen as mentally ill or disordered, because of their so-called “rigidity” and thus not of the Holy Spirit. Only those flexible enough to accept the far left’s “infallibility” are worthy to be heard because it is their vision which will be shoved upon the entire Church eventually. Or maybe not.
Thus read the ever post-Vatican II’s Larry Chapp’s commentary. I find it interesting, that many who are making so many cogent commentaries on this, both left and right, are laity or lay theologians. This too, for better or worse, is a fruit of Vatican II. Obvious the orthodox lay theologians are infallibly right and of the Holy Spirit! End of listening!
How Christocentric and Spirit-filled are the synodal machinations?
Synodal promoters have now gone beyond pastoral aims, making theological claims about how the results of the synodal process are indicative of the movement of the Holy Spirit and are therefore a true expression of the sensus fidelium.
7 comments:
I find it fascinating how many otherwise intelligent folks are unaware they are being played. The outcome of the "synod on synodality" was planned before the first session ever took place. It is a huge smokescreen; stop acting as if it is a serious process.
As for all the spirit filled debaters, am fairly sure they would all hem and haw when asked directly, "Have you ever directly experienced God? And if you did, what was it like?"...their waffling would be hilarious, rather like the synod on synodality documents, all empty blather.
Meanwhile, they claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit as they try to dumb down the rules to excuse personal greed on their parts and on behalf of those they claim to represent.
The Church Of No-Rules, where everyone is welcome, where you need give up nothing, past, ahem, your regular weekly contribution in exchange for being told what a fine, fine person you are. "I wwnt you to raise that right hand up! Raise that right hand up, and dig down deep for the Law-uhd!"
Your rhetorical question, “who can argue with that?” Is the point of the whole affair. Through the ages, has the Holy Spirit ever before worked through a committee?
I'm inclined to agree with monkmcg.
The synod seems to have been carefully engineered and choreographed with leading questions upon which "listening" will occur. The ultimate end? I suppose we can only speculate and wait to be told how the Holy Spirit desires it to be.
I began my career in legal academia in 1980. It was not long before I was introduced to the “joys” of committee work. In an act of blatant passive aggression (can one be blatantly passive aggressive?), I have ever since prominently displayed a nice engraved wooden sign that I obtained at the gift shop of the Monastery of the Holy Spirit, Conyers, Georgia. It reads:
God so loved the world that He did not send a committee.
Larry Chapp said..."...Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, the former prefect of the CDF, who offered up the shocking observation that what is going on is nothing short of a hostile takeover of the Church..."
That was a low, dreadful moment for Cardinal Müller. Even Peter Kwasniewski rejected the nonsense in question that Cardinal Müller had espoused.
From Cardinal Müller's EWTN appearance in question:
Raymond Arroyo: "I have to say, I am, I am shaken when I hear you say...that you believe the synodal process is ... shaping up into a hostile takeover of the Church, of an attempt to destroy the Church."
Cardinal Müller: "If they succeed, it will be the end of the Catholic Church."
Peter Kwasniewski tried to spin the Cardinal's remarks so that said remarks were not as preposterous as they had appeared. But Peter Kwasniewski had made the bottom line clear when he noted that despite Cardinal Müller's claim in question, "the Church cannot be destroyed."
Kale Zelden, Rod Dreher's podcast partner, also questioned Cardinal Müller's claim in question.
Kale Zelden tweeted: "If Cdl. Mueller is correct and the [Synod on Synodality] could “destroy the church” what does that then mean? That the whole indefectible boast was just wishful thinking?"
The above information was noted in the article published on the Where Peter Is blog:
https://wherepeteris.com/cardinal-muller-and-the-destruction-of-the-church/
Cardinal Müller and the Destruction of the Church
BY RACHEL AMIRI
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Post a Comment