Thursday 15 October 2015

That Walk-out Petition

I am aware through that intrepidly faithful Catholic Mundabor that there is a petition to ask the sound Catholic Bishops to walk out of the Synod. I have not yet signed it -for three reasons- though I am still considering it.

My first reason is that if the good Bishops walk out, who will defend the Faith? Contrary to the assertion of Pope Francis, the presence of the successor of Peter does not guarantee orthodoxy; his presence can do this only if he himself remains faithful to the Deposit of Faith; if the faithful Bishops walk out of the Synod it will simply go its own merry way, demolishing pastoral practice so as to accommodate moral relativism and thereby deceive souls in sinful situations into think they are at rights with God. This would be a grave error, and would be an indication that Archbishop Tomash Peta is correct in saying thesmoke of Satan is entering the aula of Paul VI, for Satan is the father not of truth, but of deception. On the other hand, a walk-out would show history that the Synod was not acceptable to all and will leave the Synod, its documents and the Pope more easily repudiated in the future.

Second, the petition makes a criticism that while there is talk about collegiality this is not being demonstrated at the Synod. Well, I for one do not want to see the kind of collegiality that is being talked about during this papacy; it is one of devolution of authority to Episcopal Conferences to decide on pastoral regulations and (and unavoidably doctrine too, via the rationale behind those changes). This kind of collegiality is High Church Anglicanism; a federation of local churches whose practices and doctrines differ. It demolishes the Catholic Church as erected by Christ to establish a preferred church of man’s own making; one without authority but full of contradictions; a church more acceptable to freemasons than Catholics. Here, as Archbishop Lefebvre foresaw, ‘the French revolution in the Church’: liberty, equality, fraternity. 

Today’s concept of collegiality is one which seeks to follow local culture rather than the Gospel; the Synod is an attempt to abandon the teaching of Jesus Christ in favour of the teachings of the secular world. It might sound good to an Episcopal Conference to have such authority, but do the bishops realise it diminishes the authority of the individual Bishop in his own Diocese, who then becomes a pawn of the Conference? And he will not be able to hide behind the Episcopal Conference when he gives account of himself and his ministry to Our Lord.

A third reason is that I am not sure we should be call on our Bishops to walk out on a pope and a synod. Perhaps we should be petitioning them not to 'walk out' but to 'fight it out' .

21 comments:

  1. I am in agreement with your point to fight it out. And we should send you into the synod with such clear teaching. I expect the great schism to be in part the delegation of doctrine to bishops conferences in violation of the Divine institution of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also agree Fr Gary. Orthodox, faithful Catholics must stay and fight to the death. If we live, we live for Christ. If we die, we die for Christ, the eternal head of the Body, the Church. True shepherds after heart of Christ don't walk away or run away. They lay down their lives for Christ's sheep. They confront the enemy or in this case, the enemies of truth. The Synod bishops must see Christ's doctrine on divorce and remarriage as a hard saying and stick with Him, our hope and salvation. Remember, we must never grow tired of doing good and practicing virtue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When Jesus asks,
    "Did you sign?"
    I'll say, "Yes!"
    For Thee & mine!



    ReplyDelete
  4. Father, this follow up article might be helpful: http://www.onepeterfive.com/why-should-the-synod-fathers-walk-out/

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think a walk out would be in order after a big fight for the orthodox faith of the ages. Otherwise history will judge the broad outlines and think that in the end everyone agreed.
    If they walk out after a strenuous argument at least it can be seen there was big disagreement and encourage those Catholics around the world that they are not leaderless. Any way the Catholic Church will survive mostly by the efforts of laity and good clergy

    ReplyDelete
  6. I signed the petition but I agree with your reasoning, Father. I see this petition as more a support for the faithful bishops. It must be helpful for them to know there are thousands of us out here (I'm in Canada) that want them to stand up for what is right.
    Barbara

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think it may be more productive to start a petition to the Holy Father to submit his own resignation under Canon 401 c. He appears to be either incapable and/or unwilling to defend the deposit of faith - the very purpose for which the Holy Ghost is granted to that office in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very good idea. I would sign THAT petition. As regards a "walk out petition" I would rather pray for our Synod fathers who are fighting for the truth and trust in their judgement to either stay or leave, as they think best.

      Delete
  8. What a disgraceful bunch.

    The very basis of the petition was mendacious. It was a setup; all one who did not walk out would, by definition, be 'unfaithful' and could then be denounced.

    I'm appalled anyone - especially a Catholic priest - considered it for a moment. It's a product of the Father of Lies and the Lord of Misrule. How could any faithful Catholic be taken in for a moment? Has hatred of Pope Francis really gone is far?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks you for commenting.
      I don't think it is hatred of Francis that people express, but a criticism of what is seen as false teaching and practice -and there is an entitlement and a duty to denounce such.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  9. False teaching?

    What false teaching?

    From Pope Francis himself, now, not from people you have decided are associated with him or you are convinced are speaking for him.

    Please be specific and quote Pope Francis himself, not what someone claims he has said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am never in the same country as Francis, never mind the same room, so neither you or I can quote him directly.
      as for false teaching, read my reply again: if what is seen as false teaching is not an accusation of actual falsity. However, there are many sound Catholics who question several things Francis has said, and his statements are frequently being expanded afterwards by the Vatican. Do a trawl of the t internet to find things he has said people find at least 'dodgy'.
      God Bless. Have a happy, healthy and Holy 2016 and beyond.

      Delete
  10. "Do a trawl of the Internet..."

    No, Father - you make the accusations, YOU do the trawl. You have no evidence, you simply appear to have prejudice and a sectarian political opposition.

    Come back when you have found something concrete.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get it right please. There is no accusation made by me; I simply state that people have a right and duty to express concern when they believe there is false teaching being done. You can find these for yourself if you do the suggested trawl. I have no intention of collating them . Popes are not above criticism , and when their own Information Service has to say 'that isn't what the Pope meant', as Fr Lombardi has now had to do frequently, something is going astray. Blind defence of Francis is not helpful to him or to the Church.
      God Bless.

      Delete
    2. This will have to be in two parts because your character counter says it is too long.

      "...that isn't what the Pope meant..." is usually said after some misreporting, along the lines of missing out "go and sin no more" from the account of the woman caught in adultery.

      "There is no accusation made by me" Oh, really?

      Let’s just check what you said:

      "...if the faithful Bishops walk out of the Synod it will simply go its own merry way, demolishing pastoral practice so as to accommodate moral relativism..."

      What you are saying there is that you believe that a substantial proportion - possibly even a majority - of the Bishops of the Church are seeking to "demolish pastoral practice" and "accommodate moral relativism" in order to lead souls into Perdition. In short, that the "Smoke of Satan" has taken over the Church.

      Which means that you believe Jesus was not telling the truth when he said "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it". Of course, you could be one of those who thinks that a tiny minority of anti-Papists are "the Remnant". They’re nuts so I hope you don’t think that.

      "Satan is the father not of truth, but of deception." Absolutely correct. Let’s have a look at an example of deception.

      The petition wording called upon 'faithful fathers' to leave the Synod. If the "faithful fathers" left the Synod, who would remain? Why, 'unfaithful fathers', of course - who could then be ignored because they are clearly not of the Church, are heretics, etc, etc. But what if NO 'faithful fathers' left the Synod? What is the situation then?

      Clearly, all who remain are, by definition, 'unfaithful' - which means that the Church has been taken over and is being run by heretics, modernists, freemasons etc. It must be; no "faithful fathers" responded to the call to leave, so there cannot be any ‘faithful fathers’ left!

      How on Earth did you fall for such self-evident delusion, Father? How many people have you misled by propagating and disseminating this base deception? Do you not recognise it for what it is?

      "...a walk-out would show history that the Synod was not acceptable to all and will leave…its documents and the Pope more easily repudiated in the future."

      You are clearly calling there for action that would enable you to 'repudiate the Pope' in the future. You are asking for such a thing to be 'made easier'.

      "I for one do not want to see the kind of collegiality that is being talked about during this papacy; it is one of devolution of authority to Episcopal Conferences to decide on pastoral regulations "

      When and where, exactly - and in his own words - did Pope Francis describe 'collegiality' in the terms you ascribe to him? Yes, the Kasperites want it but, so far, nothing from the Pope along those lines. Unless you would like to 'trawl through the Internet' and find something in his own words to support your accusation?

      Delete
    3. Second part:

      "...the Synod is an attempt to abandon the teaching of Jesus Christ..."

      That is a pretty grave and very clear accusation: the Pope called the Synod and established its terms of reference. You are saying that the Pope attempted to abandon the teachings of Christ.

      And where’s your evidence?

      The petition was an attempt to promote strife and disunity - Misrule, in other words. Its method was deception and mendacity. You have accused the Pope of deliberately seeking to abandon the Teachings of Christ. Misrule, deception and lies have only one father.

      How could you not see it? Are you so angry with the Pope for some reason that your judgement has really become that clouded?

      If you really believe that Pope Francis is a heretic, bent on the destruction of the Church, produce some evidence. You haven’t.

      This isn't 'blind defence’ of Pope Francis. If he’d truly said or preached anything that against the teachings of the Church you would have been able to produce it. You haven’t.

      This is not blind loyalty to the Pope; it is defence of the Church against its enemies, including those within.

      Delete
    4. Your comment has too many points to respond to each one, and I feel the tennis we are getting into is not helpful. Let me simply say the following.
      You acknowledge (later in your comment) that there are Kasperites who want this; the point in my statement is that they should not be allowed to have their way.
      I do think a substantial number of Bishops want new pastoral practices that do not tally with doctrine, under the guise of not altering doctrine only practice. I do not say they do so ‘in order’ to lead souls to perdition: we cannot judge their motives.
      As for the smoke of Satan, Our Lord did not say there would not be times of danger –as the Arian Crisis shows. This synod demonstrated, in my opinion, a similar crisis.
      I think those who called for the petition were seeking to demonstrate a rejection of error, and thus cause the Synod to reorientate. That the faithful Fathers stayed was I think, an attempt to steer the Barque of Peter, staying does not make them unfaithful –signing erroneous documents would.
      God Bless.

      Delete
    5. OK, Father, lets reduce it to one point.

      "...the Synod is an attempt to abandon the teaching of Jesus Christ..."

      That is a pretty grave and very clear accusation: the Pope called the Synod and established its terms of reference. You are saying that the Pope attempted to abandon the teachings of Christ.

      Delete
    6. Thank you for being specific. There WAS an attempt by the synod to overturn teaching in its application by changing pastoral practice (by the Kasperiates that you mention). It is a nonsense to claim they were leaving doctrine untouched but only seeking changes in practice -practice flows from doctrine, and they know that, similarly, once a new practice is established, a theory allowing for it had to be erected -which would constitute a change in doctrine.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  11. I specifically repeated one point from my previous post, all of which were taken from your original post.

    It is a point that you have still not addressed. I'm not very surprised, I'm sad to say. The serious point being made is not that there are heretics and dissidents about the place - there always have been, from the earliest days of the Church. But the specific point I made was not about the Kasperites, Father - it was about you.

    Let me repeat it, in case anyone is unclear.

    "...the Synod is an attempt to abandon the teaching of Jesus Christ..." You said that. Not the Kasperites, not anyone else. You said it.

    That is a pretty grave and very clear accusation: the Pope called the Synod and established its terms of reference. You are saying that the Pope attempted to abandon the teachings of Christ.

    You have avoided addressing this point and I am saddened but not surprised. I don't expect that you will acknowledge what you have done so I suggest it is pointless to continue this conversation.

    This is not "agreeing to disagree". It is recognition that you are not going to acknowledge what you did, have done and are doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I said that in the post. I don't need to 'admit' something that can be seen, but I do not agree that it is wrong, as you state. If I thought it was wrong I would have edited it out. But the point is the statement is this: that there were ‘Kasperites’ at the Synod pushing for changes to pastoral practice inconsistent with the doctrine of the faith, the Synod was being used as a means of abandoning the teaching of Christ in its practice, if not in its letter. A Pope does take responsibility for the direction of a Synod in that it is his role to keep Synods and Councils in line, not allow discussions and proposals to wander from the Dogmas of the Faith and their practical important on the Christian life. We must end this discussion here, I'm afraid. Sorry for the quick reply; I am rushing out to keep a hospital appointment.
      God Bless.

      Delete

Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.