A SYNFUL SYNOD: LAITY VOTING WITH BISHOPS

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address FB Messenger or Twitter.

New World Church: hidden in plain sight

 Perhaps the most beautiful aspect of the Palm Sunday liturgy at St Anthony's SSPX Whanganui was the priest who distributed the palms (to be kissed while kneeling), chanted the antiphons, led the long procession, chanted St Matthew's Passion and celebrated Sung High Mass - and then only five minutes later was celebrating the next Mass.

Or maybe it was the angel-faced, very small Asian boy who joined us in the pew queue, kneeling, hands clasped, until he disappeared, maybe with a Mum or Dad who had to go. 

It made one wish it were one's own little boy years ago, one's own children who were drinking at the well which Pope Francis is determined to seal up - not just the well of the Traditional Latin Mass but the Catholic Church herself, by whipping a lay-loaded Synod out from under the bishops' feet. 

On his own authority - which is not infallibility, far from it - the pope says lay men and women will vote at the Synod of Bishops on an equal footing with bishops. 

Unqualified (that is, unordained by God) men and women, be they ever so expert or ecumenical or inclusive, were not appointed by Jesus Christ to govern His Body the Church. If Francis gets away with this the Rock Masses won't be far away. 

The Bolshevik (1918, aka Red Army Soldier taking Bread from a Child) by Ilya Repin

 

This painting (above) symbolises the attempt by Francis not just to take the magisterium away from Christ's bishops but to take away the Bread of Scripture and Eucharist, first from faithful Catholics by denying them the Mass of Ages and ultimately also from Novus Ordo Massgoers by transforming their Catholic Church into a New World Church. The synful Synod is the Trojan horse which tries - unsuccessfully - to conceal this intention of the hierarchy and the "global elite".

 

"Oh what a tangled web we weave/when first we practise to deceive"

Then again, one wonders whether Pope Francis has dreamed this one up simply to inflate the numbers attending the synod. One can imagine many more of the sort of Catholic who flew in from all over New Zealand to attend the National Synod at St Catherine's Wellington last year being very keen on the idea of flying to Rome for more of the same, only worse. It's widely thought that the idea of dragging the whole bunfight out for another year was to boost drooping morale and apathy among the laity and at an educated guess, also the clergy.  

Hamilton diocese in New Zealand lamented that "the principal theme that occurred to the committee was that of apathy," which was "marked by the lack of participation." https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-drags-out-synod-as-laity-spurn-gabfest

Another cunning ploy by Francis was to handpick the ghastly Fr Timothy Radcliffe to lead the retreat for all bishops attending the October 2023 synod gathering. A prominent Dominican theologian who facilitated the Church of England's validation of homosexual relationships, Radcliffe has called sodomy "Christ's gift". https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/synod-preacher-aided-anglican-homoheresy

Fr Timothy Radcliffe: "sodomy is Eucharistic" 

Pope Francis recently spoke about the Synod on Synodality with Argentine journalist Elisabetta Piqué of La Nacion. He talked specifically about his 2018 Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio [EC], which established new canonical norms for the Synod of Bishops:

Ten years ago a serious reflection was undertaken, and a document was written, I signed it, with theologians with me, it was a community thing. This marked out a stage: “we have arrived so far, now something more is missing.” And we did not explicate what was missing, but little by little it became evident, and it was to explain synodality. For example, it was already something accepted by all that women could not vote. Then at the Synod for the Amazon it was asked, “Why can’t women vote? Are they second class Christians?”

Catholics aren't Anglicans. Yet. Francis needs a bit more time. Women can't vote because they're not bishops. 

So, we were dealing with even more serious problems for making things more perfect.

Piqué then asked: “So now will one woman or all women vote?” Pope Francis responded: “Everyone who is a participant in the synod is going to vote. He or she who is a guest or an observer is not going to vote. Whoever participates in the synod has the right to a vote. Be it a man or a woman. All, all. This word ‘all’ is key for me.”

Pope Francis shows once more that he has fallen victim to the fashionable cult of papolotry. "All" might be key for him, but it is not key for the Church.  

So now lay men and women will be voting members of the Synod of Bishops, on an equal footing with the bishops. With this revamping, the Synod of Bishops has ceased to exist, and a new de facto entity has come into existence, the Synod of Bishops and Laity.

This new arrangement represents a revolution in the Church. The laity can now exercise an important function previously restricted to bishops (and by law to a few selected priests). No theological or canonical justification was offered, simply the assertion that previous rules treated women unjustly as second-class Christians. Is it an injustice that the Synod of Bishops be composed of bishops who vote on their final document?

Just as an aside, the Holy See’s official logo for the Synod of Bishops was altered last year to simply use the word Synod. The official logo for the Synod on Synodality simply reads Synod 2021- 2024? Is this the reason that the homepage of the Synod on Synodality website nowhere uses the correct title of Synod of Bishops, except for the copyright notice in Latin (2023 Synodus Episcoporum)? Is this the reason that the home page of the Holy See website does not have a link for the Synod of Bishops, but rather for the Synod?  The correct title, however, is used in the website section you are sent to when you click on Synod. Is this an oversight?

EC states: “The Synod of Bishops, which is ‘in some manner the image’ of an Ecumenical Council and reflects its ‘spirit and method,’ is composed of Bishops. Nevertheless, as also happened at the Council, certain others who are not Bishops may be summoned to the Synod Assembly; their role is determined in each case by the Roman Pontiff.

By "certain others" Francis refers to Uncle Tom Cobbley and all the Protestants who were "summoned" to Vatican II, resulting in such awful anomalies as "For Thine is the Kingdom" etc, which is nowhere to be found in Scripture. How do Novus Ordo Massgoers not choke on it?

In this connection, special consideration must be given to the contribution that can be offered by members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.” Religious and laity who are not in holy orders can be summoned, but they cannot exercise the same role as bishops. This has been the consistent practice until now.

Canon 346 §1 is clear on who make up the membership of this ecclesial institution: “A synod of bishops assembled in an ordinary general session consists of members of whom the greater part are bishops elected for each session by the conferences of bishops according to the method determined by the special law of the synod; others are designated by virtue of the same law; others are appointed directly by the Roman Pontiff; to these are added some members of clerical religious institutes elected according to the norm of the same special law.” [Note: “others” means “other bishops”] The only non-bishops who can become members of the synod are clerics who are members of religious orders. Until now.

Lay men and women and religious have up to now been present at synods under various titles: “Besides the members, certain invited guests without voting rights may attend the Synod Assembly. These include Experts (Periti), who help with the redaction of documents; Auditors (Auditores), who have particular competence regarding the issues under discussion. Fraternal Delegates from Churches and Ecclesial Communities not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. To these may be added further special guests (Invitati Speciales), chosen because of their acknowledged authority.”

Pope Francis’ announcement that “all” who are named “participants” in the upcoming Synod on Synodality will have the vote, including lay men and women, alters the nature of the Synod of Bishops. It ceases to be an exercise of episcopal collegiality and solidarity with the bishop of Rome as described in canon 342: “The synod of bishops is a group of bishops who have been chosen from different regions of the world and meet together at fixed times to foster closer unity between the Roman Pontiff and bishops, to assist the Roman Pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline, and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world.”

In short, the Synod of Bishops had been a meeting in which selected shepherds of the Church gather together with the chief shepherd to discuss and explore what best needs to be done to fulfill their divinely given mission to sanctify, teach, and govern Christ’s flock.

Now, we have a totally different assembly in which lay people who are not sacramentally conformed by holy orders to Christ the High Priest will be treated in law as equal to bishops. This is plain wrong. A Christian is not second class because he’s not a bishop, or is not allowed to exercise a sacred function reserved by its nature to bishops, or to some invited priests who share with bishops in the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Just as a man isn't a second-class human because he's not a woman. 

This innovation must be resisted by the Church’s bishops. It conflicts with the dogmatic teaching of the Church on the nature of the sacrament of Holy Orders, in particular the nature of the episcopate. Another ‘Revolution’ in the Church - The Catholic Thing

 

The Ointment of the Magdalene (James Tissot)

"Thou gavest me no kiss; but she, since she came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet" (Lk 7:45)

PM HIPKINS ENDORSES VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

 

To comment please open your gmail account, FB Messenger or Twitter.

How Marama Davidson came to be hit by a motorbike - by standing in the street taking selfies."The truth will out"

As in other countries, the transgender movement in New Zealand is not a grassroots organisation but an increasingly radicalised campaign led by progressive elites.

As images of Auckland’s violent treatment of Posie Parker (Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull) continue to circulate on major international news channels and social media platforms, more details are emerging of the links between New Zealand’s political and media elite and the aggressive mob which congregated in Albert Park last Saturday morning.

The scene had been set the week prior when Immigration Minister Michael Wood condemned Parker for “incorrect worldviews”. He was joined by Cabinet colleagues Grant Robertson and Kiri Allan, who both expressed their disdain for Parker.

Well of course they have disdain for Posie Parker. She's married and a mother of four - in other words, she's normal. And Robertson and Allan are both (to use their own peculiar language) "queer". 

“From my (queer - ed) perspective, I find her views and statements abhorrent,” Robertson said.

“Her bigotry is dangerous and disingenuous. As a country, we need to keep our trans community close and support them through this time. The hateful language ...

What "hateful language" did Parker use? Advocating for women's-only loos and women's-only sports?

... is the same that was directed at gays and lesbians in years gone by. It’s the same misinformation and lies that destroyed lives and broke apart families. I for one will never let that rhetoric take hold. We must stand together against bigotry and transphobia.”

And this madman, Robertson, is Deputy Prime Minister. It's simply intolerable. It can't go on. Please God.

Allan said: “Nope to any person that tries to censor anyone else’s identity - race, sexuality, class, gender - just nope.

Race, sexuality and gender, Ms Allan, are simply facts. Facts can't be "censored".

 

“Let’s do what we do, Aotearoa ...

 Who's she talking to? Who or what is "Aotearoa"?

... - stand up, make some noise and support our trans whānau by showing up and drowning out any bigotry that seeks to divide and hurt our whānau.”

That's rich. Such a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Except that the kettle wasn't black.

At the same time, one of the organisers of Saturday’s counter-protest, Rainbow community leader Shaneel Lal, told TVNZ’s Breakfast show allowing someone like Keen to enter the country was normalising the hatred towards queer people.

It seems queer people are hyper-sensitive to a degree. To such a degree in fact, that they may require counselling. As in exorcism.  

“Queer hatred is at an all-time high.

Although it's not "hatred". Maybe the reason for Lal's complaint is that queer visibility is at "an all-time high". Queers have a genius for self-publicity.

So when you bring in someone like Posie Parker into our country, what she does is that it normalizes the hatred towards queer people and it emboldens people to act on their hate speech,” Lal said.

Could Lal, or Allan, or Robertson care to give an example of "hatred towards queer people" and/or acting "on their hate speech"? 

“We cannot ensure the safety of queer people at that event, having seen how that event played out in Melbourne.”

Neo-Nazis in Melbourne where the salute is now banned (which will solve everything) 

What "played out" in Melbourne was the appearance of neo-Nazis, rent-a-rabble oddities, who very likely were incentivised to turn up so that the MSM could impute to Parker guilt by association.   

Lal is a political activist and Herald columnist who gained prominence by spearheading the ban of conversion therapy last year. It is law so radical that it has the potential to criminalise parents if they stop their children from taking puberty blockers. Currently, Lal is shortlisted for the Kiwibank New Zealander of the Year.

New Zealanders who do not bank with Kiwibank will be breathing a sigh of relief. Kiwis who do and now decide to take their funds elsewhere can congratulate themselves.

Lal has established impressive political connections over the last five years. In 2018 he was photographed with the now Prime Minister Chris Hipkins.

Last year Lal joined a group of Green Party MPs outside Parliament; several of that group were in the midst of the baying mob last Saturday.

In fact it’s believed that Green Party mailing lists were used to mobilize their supporters to turn out to counter-protest the ‘Let Women Speak’ events on Saturday and Sunday.

 

Wellington Mayor and Green Party member Tory Whanau said Parker would likely receive the same treatment in Wellington as she received in Auckland, and encouraged Wellingtonians to turn up at the counter-protest.

And they did - even though, Parker having shaken the dust of Auckland off her sandals so to speak, there was absolutely nothing to protest. Have these people not got anything better to do? 

Another one of the organisers of Saturday’s counter-protest, was Max Tweedie, the outgoing executive director of Auckland Pride. Tweedie started his career in politics as co-leader of the Greens’ youth wing and deputy campaign manager for Green Party MP Jan Logie.

Funny how the same names keep cropping up. All distinguished for their support of the world's most heinous legislation against unborn children - New Zealand's Abortion Law Act, passed in March 2020. 

Earlier this year, Tweedie described his role as “a political job of some sorts”.

Tweedie has previously explained that since organisations like Rainbow Youth and InsideOut have siloed tasks, or are government-funded, they tend to be reluctant to speak out on hot-button issues. And so the media would come to him instead, “And when producers and journalists have your number, they keep calling you.”

But despite this apparent reluctance to become involved in ‘hot-button issues’, Auckland Pride, Gender Minorities Aotearoa and InsideOut Kōaro made an application to the Wellington High Court on Friday “in the pursuit of their charitable purposes which, amongst other things, are to celebrate and advocate for the rainbow and takatāpui communities in New Zealand.” Their aim was to prevent Parker from entering the country.

These groups receive funding from a number of sources. In the case of Auckland Pride, it receives support from Auckland Council and funding from Foundation North (trusteeships of which have been awarded to active Labour Party members such as Romy Udanga, and previously, to Naisi Chen (now a Labour Party List MP)

InsideOut Kōaro also received funding from Foundation North, Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Youth.

Gender Minorities Aotearoa is funded in part by the Wellington City Council and the Ministry of Health.

It seems highly questionable for central and local government bodies to be funding groups who quite clearly hold views which are at the extreme end of the spectrum on some issues and who have now demonstrated that they will use force if all other avenues fail.

So intolerant are these groups of the free speech rights of others that Parker could not even utter a single word from the Band Rotunda on Saturday morning before the mob overran the event.

In fact no sooner had Parker stepped foot inside the Rotunda than was she doused with tomato juice by transgender activist Eli Rubashkyn.

The significance of tomato juice lies in the fact that it symbolises a particularly vile and disgusting male-on-female abuse. 

Like Tweedie and Lal, Rubashkyn is a politically-connected activist who has been photographed with former Prime Minister Ardern. Rubashkyn has also attended the United Nations to Honour Women for Women’s Month.

Rubashkyn, assigned male gender at birth, honours the UN's "Women for Women's Month"? Que? How does that work? 

Despite the violence and global condemnation, New Zealand’s leaders remain totally captive to their radical gender ideology in the aftermath of the event.

Indeed, Prime Minister Hipkins stated yesterday that he would have been proud to be at the counter-protest in Auckland on Saturday despite the violence against women.

That simply takes the cake. Head Prefect Hipkins publicly associating himself with the public abuse of a woman who in a sense was representing all normal women. He has written himself off. Completely.  

Perversely, New Zealand’s Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt, attended the Wellington rally the following day, “because I wanted to demonstrate support for trans friends, colleagues and communities.”

New Zealand gets more and more like Alice in Wonderland every day. The Human Rights Commissioner, so-called, supporting people who oppose rights for women.  

Although Hunt enjoyed the festive atmosphere in Wellington as activists revelled in Parker's ejection from the country he did apportion some blame for Auckland to the police.

We should think so. 

Yesterday he wrote, “The state had a human rights responsibility to make arrangements for Keen-Minshull to speak without being assaulted, intimidated or shouted down. That did not happen.”

But with so much senior political support behind the ruckus, the police were never going to properly discharge their duties. Under the leadership of an insipid and overpromoted Commissioner, the police have become overly politicised and captive to woke ideology.

The police should not be "politicised" at all. 

It must be truly demoralizing to be the rank and file when they have been so badly let down by their leadership and a series of consistently substandard ministers.

The National parties police spokesperson, Mark Mitchell, is calling for “a serious review” into why police failed so badly on Saturday.

Thank God, National's found an independent voice on SOMETHING. 

The group Speak Up For Women has laid a complaint with the Independent Police Conduct Authority saying that the police should have done more to stop transgender activists from getting near Parker.

 

Auckland City District Commander, Inspector Grant Tetzlaff on Monday gave a totally incoherent explanation of the events that unfolded on Saturday that was almost entirely detached from reality.

He said, without any hint of irony, that it is the “role of police at events like these to keep the peace, and uphold the law, while recognising the lawful right to protest”.

“As soon as it became clear there was a potential safety risk to the Albert Park event speaker, she was escorted from the area by police staff,” he said.

One can only assume that Mr Plod (as indeed he is traditionally characterised) is extremely slow on the uptake. Or he lies in his teeth. 

Despite an elderly lady being punched repeatedly in the face by a young male activist in broad daylight, Tetzlaff confirmed that police did not make any arrests on the day.

This Labour government may not be able to organise housing or education or health or much else, but it can organise an unruly mob within days if it’s necessary to defend its radical gender ideology and prevent people from gathering in the corner of a small Auckland park to discuss women’s issues.

And that, maybe, is the most shocking element to this outrage. This was in all respects a politically sanctioned and organised mob. Free speech was silenced, and a speaker ejected from the country, by political violence. In New Zealand. Catherine Gow, NZ Observer (redacted).

ne Edgar a

Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (van Dyck)

Deliver me, O Lord, from the evil man.

Rescue me from the wicked man.

-Vespers I, Palm Sunday