One week from today, the long-awaited post-synod exhortation on the family will finally be released.
All indications are that it will be painfully long (my guess is that it will probably be in excess of 25,000 words). As such, reading it will be my Friday penance next week.
Now, even though we will know its contents for certain soon enough, below is a list of the kinds of things I expect to find in the document based on all that has been said and done thus far.
Add your own expectations in the comments section. I think it will be interesting to see how many of the key points we’re able to come up with.
_____________________________________________________________________
– No doubt there will be some alarmist language exaggerating the nature and scope of the present “pastoral problem.” You know, like reference to the throngs of LGBT “parents” banging on church doors just begging for Baptism for their unfortunate children.
– It will likely include phrases like “failed marriages” and “second unions” that subtly yet effectively undermine Catholic doctrine concerning the indissolubility of marriage and the sinfulness of sexual relations outside of marriage.
– Francis will use the occasion to once again take shots at his favorite scapegoats – those rascally “traditionalists” (aka Catholics) who wish to make of the Church a “fortress.”
– There will be calls for greater synodality going forward, and Francis will likely revise history by pointing to the recent Synod on the family as evidence for just how well the process works, and this in spite of the fact that the document will subvert the will of the majority of bishops.
– I expect Francis to encourage National Bishops’ Conferences to study these “pastoral needs” more deeply with an eye toward establishing their own norms. He will cite cultural differences between various peoples as the reason this is necessary. The Germans in particular will be pleased to ride this horse as far as it will take them.
– Francis will cite the crucial role played by the sensus fidei (such as he “understands” it) in this matter; claiming that the “God of Surprises” (aka Jorge Bergoglio) is leading the Church via the cries of the sheep. (It’s strictly coincidental that this just happens to be in precisely the same direction he and his favorite profound and serene theologian happen to favor.)
– There will be numerous pleas “for the children” with respect to “second union” and gay parent families, but the document will fail to adequately address the tremendous damage that is done to children by divorce itself; much less will it decry the horrendous damage inflicted upon children who are exposed to homo-deviance.
– It will likewise fail to mention the necessity of perseverance in marriage (i.e, avoiding divorce in the first place), much less do I expect it to mention the first ends of marriage; the procreation and education of children.
– Given that Francis has expressed his admiration for Orthodox theology in the past, I wouldn’t be surprised to find some positive reference to their treatment of “second marriages,” albeit stopping short of plainly endorsing it.
– There can be little doubt that Francis will misappropriate Sacred Scripture, twisting it in Protestant fashion to say whatever he wants it to say. (Hey, don’t blame him; he’s just following the Council’s lead.)
– He will likewise twist the words of previous popes; in particular, John Paul the Great Ecumenist as found in Familiaris Consortio with regard to “gradualism.”
– Integration, integration and more integration… The document will include numerous and varied calls for greater “integration” into the parish of those in irregular (read, objectively sinful) family situations. “Integration” will no doubt be one of the document’s key buzzwords.
– This “integration” will include encouraging participation in Francis’ pet causes by name; e.g., environmental projects, earthbound service to the poor, care for the lonely elderly and unemployed youth.
– Liturgical roles will be among those encouraged in this proposed “integration” process. (Don’t forget, modernists see the liturgy as a tool for indoctrination, and I don’t mean Catholic doctrine!)
– There may even be a call for parishes and dioceses to create “integration committees” or something along those lines for ensuring that our parishes are sufficiently “welcoming.”
– Expect a call for the use of more “pastoral” language with respect to sexual deviants (gays); e.g., eliminating reference to words like disordered, evil, unnatural, etc.
– Accompaniment, accompaniment, accompaniment…
– A “process of discernment” between the pastor and the individual (divorced and remarried, gay) will be proposed with the goal being a return to the Sacraments, even if only implicitly stated as such.
– Confession will be treated in the document, but with a call (again, perhaps only implicit) for pastors to refrain from insisting upon a firm purpose of amendment on the part of penitents. After all, they must be duly applauded just for getting in the box.
– Mercy, mercy, mercy… There will be multiple calls for “mercy” (yet another of the document’s key buzzwords) and precious few pleas for justice.
– Ecumenical concerns will almost certainly creep into the text; though I don’t expect encouragement for non-Catholics to receive Communion similar to the infamous advice Francis gave to the Lutheran woman. In any case, look for ecumenism to get its due just the same. After all, this entire project on the Catholic family (in my view) is but a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal; namely, making of Catholicism a Masonic-inspired religion wherein all faiths supposedly journey together in “making the world a better place.”
– Internal forum, internal forum, internal forum… In spite of any talk about “a process of integration” that includes the pastor, the primary focus will be on the “internal forum” as a means of placing the ultimate decision with respect to the reception of Holy Communion in the hands of the individual (no pun intended) in the realm of “conscience.”
– The end result? Not only will the cattle call to Holy Communion that already exists get worse, those pastors who are inclined to uphold their duty to safeguard the Blessed Sacrament, as well as to protect the souls of those who would heap condemnation upon themselves by receiving unworthily (recall what St. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 11:30 about this being the cause of illness and even death!) will be undermined entirely. Those pastors who dare to withhold Communion in cases where they should will be persecuted all the more.
OK,that’s enough from me. What say you, my friends?
It is madness to think that anything good could come from this papacy. I know, I know—-I’m a very negative person. I wasn’t born that way. I just can’t expect anything Catholic (aka Catholic) to come out of the post-conciliar church. I hope I’m proven wrong. If the Novus Ordo church believes in the Real Presence, they have an odd way of showing it. How can they be trusted?
The Pope is not speaking infallibly. Therefore, I do not care what the Pope has to say. My opinion is just as valid as the Pope’s opinion. In reality, my opinion carries more weight that the Pope, because I reverence Church Tradition.
“Papa Fiasco”, genius!
I think I found a missing term for those planning on playing “buzzword bingo” next week – peripheries! However, that likely will appear as a counter point to the “fortress” reference.
I just had a terrible vision…
In it I saw a calling for a new form of ‘Mass.’
In it the Holy Eucharist was seen as the true barrier towards ‘unity.’
They could not find a way to directly contradict the Church’s teaching on giving Holy Communion to unrepentant sinners… So they sought a way to do without the Eucharist altogether…
Behold the ‘Homo Novus Mass’!
Here ‘Mass’ is to mean the gathering of the people!
In this gathering there is only the unity of the people of God!
There is no Eucharist, there is no sacrifice, and therefore there is no necessity for a priest.
The people shall elect a presider to serve them. One who represents their diversity and harmony. The ‘New Man’ (or woman) shall lead the true ecumenicism, and unto this shall the gathering of the people be.
They shall wash each others feet. They shall each minister to each other. There shall be expression of novelties. They shall be no exclusion. They shall call upon ‘the spirit’ and being filled with it, go up the the lectern of their own accord and deliver homilies about their lives and their feelings and what they experience now.
Their differences will not matter, only the coming together, the meeting, the breaking down of walls and barriers rather than the doctrines, the theologians pride, and that divisive thing – the Eucharist – the alleged presence of the alleged risen God.
Think of the benefits!
No Eucharist = no need for divorced or homosexuals or anyone to feel excluded!
No Eucharist = a greater opening to Protestants and Muslims and people of other faiths to come to the gathering.
No Eucharist = no need for priests, no need for seminarians, no need for vocations. They will have solved the vocation crisis!
In Humility we will introduce this ‘Homo Novus Mass’ of Pope Francis I, and call for all parishes and churches to make way on Saturdays & Sunday for this new gathering open to all!
The Eucharistic Mass shall be moved to accommodate this new celebration. Once that is concluded, the tabernacle, if present, shall be removed.
If they ask, “Where have they taken Him?” They will respond, “Do we not read that where two or more are gathered in His name, there shall he be? There is no need for it, because God is already present here! In you! In Me!”
Overtime, the ‘Novus Ordo’ itself shall decrease, and the ‘Homo Novus’ shall increase, until it is as rare as that old previous rite that only so few are accustomed to. It too shall be rare, though we must say it will become rarer than even that previous ritual, for the Novus Ordo Churches shall be more accommodating and welcoming of the Homo Novus.
And thus they will usher in a new era of gathering, or togetherness, of spontaneity, of diversity, of unification, all of them, facing each other in circular formation, looking inward, eyes into eye, until there is only one eye gazing without divisions, without edges, corners or peripheries, all hand in hand and arm in arm, different cultures, different faiths, different genders, different tongues.
A new creation! All things made new in the Homo Novus! A new ‘Mass’ for the New Family in the New World Order!
Sounds like a very possible scenario. Everyone is willing to follow El Humblergoglio into whatever he suggests because he claims to be the pope.
Eucharist
It is only by My goodness and grace that you are allowed to approach My table
Thomas a Kempis
Excellent summary of what is most highly likely to occur and be written. Thank you so much, Louie, for clear and accurate post that will be the much needed reminder of the necessecity to keep praying for God’s assistance to help put an end to this outrageous crisis we find ourselves in while our Most Holy Mother Church is about to be once again abused and traitored upon.
Louie, your preview list of contents is, I fear, what is indeed in the exhortation. There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise, given all the overwhelming evidence in this pontificate. I would perhaps add a possible mention of the role of the “missionaries of mercy” during this Jubilee Year: that of overcoming all the doctrinal/pastoral obstacles of those nasty traditionalists (aka Catholics). 🙂
Eucharist
It is only by My goodness and grace that you are allowed to approach My altar.
Thomas a Kempis
Let’s not forget the tried and true buzzwords “dialogue” and “new.” After all, how can any reasonable person object to “dialogue?” How can something “new” be anything but better than something “old”? A word cloud of the document will be quite telling.
That’s because he IS the pope – that is a fact. A dogmatic fact, that is – the theologians teach that when the faithful at large accept a papal election it MUST be valid. If this wasn’t the case, no Catholic would ever know which popes throughout history were “really” popes (despite some internet blogger’s private judgement) and thus would never know even which Catholic dogmas were even valid as all have been promulgated by popes (directly or indirectly).
Sedevacantism: A Bridge Too Far
–
The dogmatic sedevacantist position is one that appears as a legitimate solution to this crisis in the Church (the worst in Her history) only to those who have not yet fully explored its ramifications and/or do not know her theology well enough. In point of fact, there are at least several “one-shot kills” of the position – simple facts that, in and of themselves, render it untenable – impossible and leading directly to material heresy. We will explore a few of them here.
–
Before we begin, there is something else to note: The dogmatic sedevacantist position actually *encompasses* the “recognize & resist” response to wayward prelates (which is what the Church really teaches, more or less) that they mock, but simply takes it further – at least one bridge too far (and sometimes as many as 30 or so). Those who recognize prelates the Church has validly elected (as the Church and even common sense require, in the end), but decline to accept their non-binding, non-infallible teachings (again, as the Church commands) use their intellects and actual, binding Church teaching to determine what is congruent with that teaching and what is not – just as God and the Church have always required. Sedevacantists do the same, but then, continue where they have no logical or lawful right to go, declaring that a pope the Church has elected is not really a pope because the individual determines he is a heretic either before or after his election. So, when the sede disparages the position that the popes and theologians have aspired, to recognize but resist prelates with false (but non-binding) teachings, they condemn their own position as well, essentially.
–
Concerning that critical determination of heresy, it is here where the dogmatic sedes first go wrong – and these errors in premise result in large errors in conclusion. The fact (as has been thoroughly demonstrated by Robert Siscoe over the past few years, causing sede leaders to (futiliy) shift their arguments, etc.) is that there is no theologian in the history of the Church who ever sanctioned what the sedes do: Making the critical determination of formal (obstinate) heresy a matter of private judgment. Bellarmine, the sedes’ go-to theologian, was explicit in the fact that the determination of formal heresy is something that belongs to *the Church*: the Church must, at the least, issue two formal warnings to an erring pontiff before it declares him *to have judged himself* (since he can be judged by no man).
–
To continue past that, the basic tenet of dogmatic sedevacantism – that men canonically elected pope are actually *not*, and that an individual can determine this for himself and then insist upon it as a *public fact* that mus be accepted by all – can be proven false rather simply and from several different angles. Here are a few:
–
1) The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, Canon 10: The Church directly and formally considered the question of whether or not the faithful can formally separate from any prelate sans judgment by the Church, and the answer was no. Sedevacantists live materially under the anathema the council declared:
–
“… this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.”
–
Fr. Cekada, in a perfect display of what sedevacantism is really about, objects that this canon that says one can’t depose prelates doesn’t apply to the prelates he wants to separate from because he’s declared them deposed! It comes back to his judgement, which he insists must be regarded as factual and accepted with ecclesiastical (if not divine) faith, regardless of any “careful enquiry and judgment in synod”.
–
So, already, we can say sedevacantism is false: QED.
–
2) The Church’s public acceptance of a supreme pontiff is itself proof of his validity; the theologians agree that it is a dogmatic fact. I.e., if we didn’t know if we ever had a pope we wouldn’t know ANYTHING: We wouldn’t know the dogmas he’d proclaimed (directly or via ratification of an ecumenical council’s teachigs) were true or not. Thus, the Holy Ghost would not allow, could not allow the visible Church to accept a pope as such if he were not. Anarchy (such as the anarchy of sedevacantism) would be the result if the Church did not have certainty in the validity of a papal election: Not only would no one ever know if we had a pope or not at the present time, no one could ever have even moral certainty in the validity of past popes, and thus no one could grant even ecclesiastical faith to *any* of the Church’s dogmas (since the validity of the promulgating pontiff would not be morally certain). (And we do have sedevacantist leaders extent who have declared invalid popes that reigned centuries ago that the Church has always recognized as valid pontiffs, so this not some kind of theoretical red herring.)
–
(Note that the exceptions such as the Western Schism do not undo this rule: In such cases there obviously was *not* universal acceptance of the pontiff.)
–
3) The Visibility of the Church: The Church’s visibility is one of her three attributes – necessary qualities that follow directly from her nature – and sedevacantism leads directly to a denial of it (or her indefectibility, which is an even more serious breach of Catholic doctrine).
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects: Materially, people can identify the Church by her visible members & hierarchy and also (the important, formal part) know that this is the Catholic Church, by her Marks. For God to command that souls enter this Church (as He does) as the Ark of Salvation, it must be formally visible. As Christ’s incarnate, physical Body was visible, so is that of His Church. (And as He is composed of two natures, divine and human, so is the Church – one can err, one cannot.)
–
The notion of an invisible Church (with visible members) was, of course, one of the primary errors/denials of the early “Reformers”, and that is exactly where sedevacantists have pitched their tent today – as with the Protestants, it is essentially a necessary consequence of their position. Sede leaders have advanced models of the Church that are identical to the Protestant definition. But the Church cannot be invisible; it cannot be hidden; it cannot be some visible entity other than what it was in the past. Any of these things destroy the Church’s teachings regarding her visibility. Sedevacantism tosses this to the wind with their talk of the “false church of Vatican II”. If this Church is now false, where, now, is the Catholic Church? Clearly they cannot point to any specific Church that has her four Marks and necessary attributes. They know this and do not try; that is how they end up with the Protestent definition of the Church.
–
(Somewhat related to visibility is the mark of universality (catholicity). Theologians have discussed two two aspects of catholicity: right & fact. The former of these means that the Church always had the aptitude to spread throughout the world, and the latter that it did, in fact, do so. Van Noort, among others, notes that once the Church became universal in fact (spread to many nations) this characteristic became a permanent, necessary quality of it. Thus, once the Church (visible as she always has been and will be) became spread broadly among many nations, this so-called moral universality became a permanent property. The Church is now formally visible throughout virtually the entire world, perpetually – everyone (generally speaking) knows of the Catholic Church. It can never be the case that the Church that was once so broadly visible can cease to be visible, formally, anywhere. It will also never be reduced to a number or size that lacks moral universality – a *tiny* remnant.)
–
I think there are more one-shot killers such as these but that will suffice.
–
We can say it’s intuitively obvious that the Church just can’t work the way the sedes assert. If personal heresy (judged authoritatively by a third-party individual) were enough to deprive a pope of his ecclesiastical office (or prevent him from obtaining it), no Catholic at any time in history would know if we had a pope or not and thus no Catholic in the world at any time or place could have ecclesiastical faith in anything the Church has ever taught as definitive. This point is intentionally reiterated for effect.
–
God hasn’t given us a Church, perpetual, indefectible, and immaculate, the infallible Ark of Salvation, yet so ridiculously fragile and subject to individual whim as they imagine. It can’t have been meant to work that way and it does not work that way. Realizing how terrible this crisis of modernism is, seeing the Church bruised and bloodied, is indeed impetus for *exploring* notion such that the pontiffs who have ruled over this ruin were and are not truly popes. However, it simply is not possible to conclude so without embracing not only logical absurdities but material heresy as well.
–
So, concluding that sedevacantism just doesn’t work, what’s a Catholic to do when faced with Popes who at least seem to undermine Catholic doctrine in their statements and practices, and even foist (but not authoratively) a new Rite of Mass upon the entire Roman Church designed to subjugate Catholic dogma so as to appeal to heretics? Fortunately, the answer to that query is essentially provided by the theologians and popes of old. The below is nothing but the barest of introductions to the subject.
–
Sedevacantists like the papal bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio because they think it justifies their position. However, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio speaks of *valid popes*: “the Roman Pontiff… who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the faith”. Here we have a veritable R&R proof-text, don’t we? We have a Supreme Pontiff telling us in a papal bull no less that the faithful should, indeed, “contradict” (resist) a pope who has “deviated from the faith”. Implicit in the statement is the notion that human beings must be willing to use their intellects to determine what is congruent with the defined, infallible Faith and what is not. He is to be resisted, but certainly there no justification for declaring him deposed.
–
St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet (teacher) from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place [recognize]. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people [resist], and not that they depose them [recognize]. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff” (from De Membris Ecclesiae, as quoted in True Or False Pope, pp 645-646; bracketed portions are from True of False Pope). So, the sedes’ go-to theologian tells us that false prophets are “not to be listened to” *and* specifically that they “not depose him”.
–
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, *the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings*” (Cited by Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, as quoted in True or False Pope, pp 647, emphasis mine).
–
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists themselves to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
–
Of course, there are many more such quotations, from theologians including Aquinas, that could be brought to bear.
–
These teachings of the theologians and papal Magisterium are congruent with what the Magisterium teaching about itself, in that it is the Deposit of Faith that is the primary rule of faith, with the Magisterium secondary. The secondary Rule cannot contradict the primary without losing its essence and validity. Aquinas: “We believe the successors of the apostles only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings” (De Veritate, as quotes in True or False Pope, pp 648). Aquinas points out that it is the virtue of Faith that allows Catholics to sense error – Catholics have the blessing of the Church as Mother and Teacher, but, especially in abnormal times, no Catholic can leave himself without the benefit of both his intellect and the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost.
–
This post is intended to be as brief, given the venue. I recognize that references are not provided consistently. If you’d like to challenge any particular point, please go ahead, and I will respond with more detail and references.
–
Finally, for a thorough demonstration on how the leaders of the sedevacantist movement have completely and absolutely failed to meaningfully engage, much less refute, Salza & Siscoe’s new work, have a look here:
–
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-watch.html
I used the ipieta app version of The Imitation of Christ.
The Translators
Aloysius Croft
Harold Bolton
I agree that altar would be preferable… Could you recommend a good translation/version of The Imitation of Christ?
You’re really repeating the same talking points answered by sedevacantists already. This is why I doubt you actually studied the sedevacantist position. You treat these arguments as though they are one shot knock down arguments, but these objections were answered already: just read the materials. For example Siscoe and Salza take quotes out of context. For example a man does not have to be warned twice. If Bellarmine actually meant what they try to show he meant the passages around it make no sense. Also one can’t be considered a schismatic if he doubts whether the papal claimant is valid. One is a schismatic who accepts him as legitimate authority but refuses to obey him. I will quotes from a Novus Ordo website:
*”Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation…”
Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, n. 398
*”Nor is there any schism if……one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.”
Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2
*”Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].”
de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8
http://www.protestanterrors.com/pope-heresy.htm
The original has “table”: “Sed ex sola pietate et gratia mea permitteris ad MENSAM meam accedere.”
There is nothing wrong in itself with calling the altar a “table”; indeed, many of the venerable rites of the Church, East and West, do so. Context determines whether it’s a problem or not. I doubt we have a problem with the Byzantine altar, adorned with gold and candles and surrounded by incense, behind an ornate iconostasis, being called the “sacred and spiritual table,” as the Divine Liturgy puts it.
“What say you, my friends?”
I say, I will wait for YOUR end-game analysis.
25,000 words. Ouch!
Thank you for the penance you are to embark upon next Friday.
—–
You are trained in interpreting modernist language —— You studied the Vatican 2 documents.
I’ll just wait for your translation.
Turns out the website is sedevacantist, mea culpa But Novus Ordo adherents understand the difference between resisting evil commands and resisting non-Catholic religious teaching, laws and worship.