 |
| Christ cleanses the Temple |
A Dutch bishop has walked out of the Synod, calling it "vile".
Bishop Robert Mutsaerts is joined in his condemnation of this Bergoglian bastardisation of the Church - now to be pursued ad nauseam until 2024 - by Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Bishop Marian Eleganti, even the mild-mannered, holy Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan.
“God is out of the picture in this vile synodal process,” said Bishop Mutsaerts, adding that “the Holy Spirit has absolutely nothing to do with it.”
"Among the protagonists are defenders of gay marriage, folks who don't think abortion is a problem and never show themselves defenders of the Church's rich creed, wanting above all to be liked by their secular surroundings" (redacted).
Bishop Mutsaerts is auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. He commented that the Synod's new working document “For a synodal Church: communio, participatio, mission,” calls for a female diaconate and uses the language of the LGBT agenda. He announced that he has left the synodal process.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller has called the Synod a “hostile takeover of the Church of Jesus Christ” and invited Catholics to resist. With good reason, he compares the current Church crisis with the 4th-century Arian crisis.
Faithful Catholics should note that according to St John Henry Newman the Church was saved from that crisis by lay faithful who remained loyal to Church doctrine. Over 80% of the world's bishops "failed in their confession of the faith" with Pope Liberius even excommunicating the great St Athanasius.
"The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Cathoic truth, and the bishops were not." During this terrible crisis those who remained faithful did so by adhering to "the tradition of the Apostles" - tradition which was handed on so lucidly in the liturgy of theTraditional Latin Mass. We realise, therefore, the motivation of Antipope Francis and his modernist bishops (chief among them in New Zealand Cardinal John Dew) in cancelling the Mass of Ages. But they cannot cancel the truth which is written not just in Church doctrine and dogma but in our sore hearts.
He even said that, in light of the spreading of the LGBT agenda in the Church, “one does not have to obey an obviously heretical bishop just for reasons of formal fidelity.” Blind obedience such as this, he continued, “would be cadaveric obedience, which not only contradicts reason but also faith.”
Very sadly for New Zealand Catholics, they are not obliged to obey - but instead should firmly resist - a hierarchy which by its own advocacy of the Synod's LGBTQ agenda are proven to have betrayed the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, recently agreed with the German Cardinal Muller, pointing out that the process itself is steered and influenced by a certain agenda, calling it “manipulation” by churchmen “who push their own ideological agenda.”
 |
| Cardinal Grech: 'the Synod is a discerning process' |
 |
| Cardinal Hollerich calls for a rethink of homosexuality: “I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct.” |
Both Cardinal Mario Grech and Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, who have been called by Pope Francis to play leading roles in this synodal process, are promoters of the LGBT agenda – for example the approval of homosexuality – within the Catholic Church.
Swiss Bishop Marian Eleganti condemns this synod as "a marketing campaign for heresy".
"It is again about the same synodal leftovers warmed up for the umpteenth time since the ‘70s: democracy, participation, involvement in power, women in all offices and the diaconate of women or priesthood of women; revision of sexual morality regarding extramarital sex, remarriage, and homosexuality: doing away with priest-centeredness in liturgy, etc. We all know this..https://youtu.be/2HAj-p80NCI
As a reader of this blog remarks, for Novus Ordo Massgoing Catholics with no vested interest in the LGBTQ agenda, this Synod is monumentally BORING.
As for Antipope Francis, he let the cat out of the bag when he said, at the opening of the Synod on Synodality, “If we want to speak of a synodal Church, we cannot remain satisfied with appearances alone; we need content, means and structures that can facilitate dialogue and interaction within the People of God, especially between priests and laity. This requires changing certain overly vertical, distorted and partial visions of the Church, the priestly ministry, the role of the laity, ecclesial responsibilities, roles of governance and so forth.”
He even went so far as to quote Fr. Yves Congar (1904-1995) an infamously malign influence on Vatican II, a progressive Dominican peritus (theological expert) at Vatican II and co-founder of the heterodox journal Concilium,[6] who “once said: ‘There is no need to create another Church, but to create a different Church’ (True and False Reform in the Church).”https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2022/01/20/the-synod-on-synodality-implementing-the-ecclesiology-of-vatican-ii/
On his blog Bishop Mutsaerts - who in the days when orthodoxy was required of cardinals would have been made one himself, in the tradition of the saintly Cardinal Pie, by now - writes:
"The mantra of the process is: listen. To whom? To everyone. The working document contains a goodly number of quotes. “These quotations were chosen because they express in a particularly powerful, beautiful or precise way feelings that are expressed more generally in many reports. The synodal experience can be read as an avenue of recognition for those who do not feel adequately recognized in the Church.” The contours of the synodal process are becoming increasingly clear. It provides a megaphone for non-Church views. The document indicates what the synodal path should ultimately lead to: “This means a Church that learns by listening how to renew its evangelizing mission in light of the signs of the times, in order to continue to offer humanity a way of being and living in which all can feel included as protagonists.”
Who are those who feel excluded? Par. 39: “Among those who call for a more meaningful dialogue and a more welcoming space, we also find those who, for various reasons, feel a tension between belonging to the Church and their own loving relationships, such as: remarried divorced people, single parents, people living in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ people, etc.” In short, those who do not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church. What the working document seems to suggest is that we compile a list of complaints and then debate them. The mission of the Church is a different one. Which is not: examine all opinions and then let’s come to an agreement. Jesus commanded us something else: proclaim the truth; it is the truth that will make you free. Particularly curious is the comment that the Church pays no attention to polygamy. For that matter, the document does not pay any attention to traditionalists. Those also feel excluded. Indeed, they are literally so by Pope Francis (Traditionis custodes). Apparently, there is no empathy for this group.
To date, the synodal process is more like a sociological experiment and has little to do with the Holy Spirit supposedly sounding through all. That could almost be called blasphemous. What is becoming increasingly clear is that the synodal process is going to be used to change a number of Church positions, with the Holy Spirit then also being thrown into the fray as an advocate, even though the Holy Spirit has really breathed something counterintuitive throughout the centuries. Above all, what can be gleaned from the listening sessions is an evaporated faith, no longer practiced, and not accepting the Church’s positions. People complain that the Church does not accept their views. This is not entirely true, by the way. The Flemish and German bishops go a long way with them, which is actually much more tragic. They no longer want to call sin, sin. Hence conversion and repentance are no longer discussed.
Predictable is the call for the admission of women to the priesthood: “the active role of women in the governing structures of church bodies, the possibility for women with adequate training to preach in parishes, and a female diaconate and priesthood.” A futile exercise given that the last three pontificates have explicitly stated that this is an impossibility. In politics, everything is open to discussion and debate. In the Church it is not. We have such a thing as Church doctrine that is not subject to time and place.
But the working document really seems to question everything. For example, in par. 60 we read, “The call to the conversion of ecclesial culture, for the salvation of the world, is concretely linked to the possibility of establishing a new culture, with new practices and structures.” And then this: “The bishops are asked to find appropriate ways to carry out their task of validating and approving the final document and ensuring that it is the fruit of an authentic synodal journey, respectful of the process that has taken place and faithful to the different voices of the People of God in each continent.” Apparently, the office of bishop is reduced to simply implementing what is ultimately the greatest common denominator as the outcome of a raffle of opinions.
The final closing stage of the synodal process cannot but turn out to be a Babel-like confusion. Predictably, all those who do not get it their way will say they are being excluded. In advance, this is a recipe for disaster. If everyone gets their way – which is not actually possible – the disaster is complete. Then the Church will have denied itself and squandered its identity, crystal-clear about what its views were. You convince people by standing for the Catholic faith with reasoned and full conviction. You convince no one by merely listening and leaving it at that. The annoying thing is that the bishops were instructed to listen and then to document what was said. These reports were then collected at the Church province level and then forwarded to Rome. Reports that included the necessary heresies with the signature of the bishops’ conference. We could not do otherwise, but I am by no means happy about it. Several cardinals, by the way, also aired this in Rome, asking once again what synodality actually is. There was no clear answer.
Jesus took a different approach. He listened to the two disappointed disciples who were on their way to Emmaus. But at one point He took the floor and made it clear to them that they were going astray. That led them to turn around and return to Jerusalem. If we don’t turn around we end up in Emmaus and are even further from home than we already are.
One thing is clear to me. God is out of the picture in this vile synodal process. The Holy Spirit has absolutely nothing to do with it. Among the protagonists of this process are to me a few too many defenders of gay marriage, folks who don’t really think abortion is a problem and never really show themselves defenders of the Church’s rich creed, wanting above all to be liked by their secular surroundings. How unpastoral, how unloving. People want sincere answers. They don’t want to go home with more questions. You’re keeping people away from salvation. I have since dropped out of the synodal process.
+Rob Mutsaerts
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/dutch-bishop-leaves-vile-synod-on-synodality-the-holy-spirit-has-absolutely-nothing-to-do-with-it/
 |
| The Mass of Ages: 'lex orandi, lex credendi' |
No comments:
Post a Comment