The Synod has started....

I think so. All that matters is what comes out at the end. And that will come down to Pope Francis.

 

Of course there are saints there too. But the I see the open grin of Satan. He has prepared for this long and hard.

 

Well no good ranting. I am going to grit my teeth and go silent again. This is putting my blood pressure up.

Let's wait and see what happens.

 

My head will end up exploding.

Is there anything as rotten as a bad Bishop?

 

View attachment 3587

 

Well thank God for Mass. That always bring me peace. 7am mass in the monastery and I am in heaven. Peace blessed peace.

Though even there sometimes when I hear certain sermons I have the urgent desire to rush up and choke certain priests.

I am becoming more and more like my father every day. He was a volcano on wheels.

 

This is absolutely correct. In all the 'who-ha' over the synod it is often forgotten that it is simply an advisory process. The synod has no powers of its own - it is there to advise the Pope who is the only person with the authority to make any changes.

 

Padraig after reading your first line here, the first thing that popped into my mind was John 13:27, Jesus and Judas at the last supper: "And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly."

 

While I pray that Pope Francis doesn't give in to the foolishness of some of these princes of the church I am shocked at the heresy that is openly being uttered and promoted by some of them. One promotes co-habitation, another promotes the "positive elements" of homosexuality, another tries to bring up the settled issue of women priests or deacons that St Pope John Paul II closed in 1994 and the CDF confined to be an infallible teaching. I thought this was a synod about the family?

St John the Baptist lost his head for calling out the invalid marriage of Herod and Herodius. It seems that marriage is now being turned on it head and world dictates what is merciful and good. Some Cardinals and Bishops are speaking about holy and sound Catholic doctrine like the Africans, Poles and the Eastern Bishops but the gangrene of some others is astonishing. One does not have to know what is being said in the meeting hall itself as a great number of them are speaking openly at every microphone. There is little or no discussion of the scriptures, sacred tradition, our dear Lord Jesus Christ or the Holy Family as a model. Instead we hear sociology and rhetoric and a deep yawning from the indifferent. It reminds me of TS Elliot's poem, The Waste Land.

Even if the Pope does not issue a final document or does himself produce a good orthodox document in the end is no one shocked at the state of the hierarchy? I do not believe that this is pleasing to our Lord

 

I understand what you men here Mac, but it is not entirely true that "All that matters is what comes out in the end." The fact that many of the bishops support or at least would be willing to go along with a radical agenda is of great import. No matter what the Pope does it means that they will go back to their respective diocese and implement to the best of their abilities the agenda no matter what the Pope says. There are already openly gay Masses and other travesties going on while bishops look the other way of even participate. I know it isn't going to happen any time soon, but I wish Pope Francis or some future Pope would excommunicate and replace many of them even if it meant a much smaller Church.

 

I agree with you Praetorian

 

I laughed when I finished typing my post and yours popped up at the same time. We were both essentially writing the same thing.

 

Your views, Praetorian, are so distant from what Pope Francis believes and how he is trying to lead us. Pope Francis calls us to bring Christ to everyone, not to frighten the misguided (or sinners) away. The synod displays varied thinking on the best way to encourage men to walk with Christ in their lives but accusing those whose views you disagree with as heretics is not, I feel, a very helpful approach. I copy below another interesting article from 'Inside the Vatican' which helpfully illustrates differing views on the importance of receiving the Eucharist:

Synod: Failed marriages and those theories about the Eucharist

In an interview, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated that every Christian has the duty to come to mass, not to take communion. A look at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on this subject and at the words of Fr. Divo Barsotti

GIANNI VALENTE ROME

“People suffer because their marriages are broken, not because they cannot take communion.” These were Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller’s words in a recent interview to an Italian newspaper. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith distanced himself from the opinions of those who insist on the chance to find ways to admit remarried divorcees to the sacrament of the Eucharist. In his response, the current head of the former Holy Office also added that “we see consecration as the core of the Eucharist, every Christian has the duty to come to mass but not to take communion. Concentrating on one point alone, resolves nothing.”

The statements made by the Prefect of the Vatican doctrinal dicastery sound rather peremptory, as though they intend to do away with elaborate and extravagant questions. And yet, it is these very assertions that need to be reviewed in light of some fundamental teachings permanently set out in the doctrine of the Catholic Church in relation to the participation of baptised individuals in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Pronouncements that point to the reception of the body and blood of Christ as an essential – not optional – element of faithful’s full participation in the Eucharistic liturgy.

One need only look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, written under the supervision of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, which repeats in paragraph 1388 that: “It is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist that the faithful, if they have the required dispositions, receive communion when they participate in the Mass. As the Second Vatican Council says: "That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's Body from the same sacrifice, is warmly recommended." Paragraph 1389 quotes the Conciliar Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum, saying: “The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season. But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.”

The duty Catholics have to participate in the Eucharist, at least at Easter, as set out in the Church’s Catechism, echoes what is prescribed in the third of the Church’s five general Precepts: “You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in paragraph 2042, the expression “at least during the Easter season”, “guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and centre of the Christian liturgy”. This fundamental element of sacramental practice and the liturgy, which every Catholic faithful is bound to, is mentioned in all its simplicity in the widely published booklets that contain the prayers and fundamental practices of the spiritual and sacramental life of the people of God, that have been built up over the years. But there are also great theologians and masters of spirituality - who are recognised by the people of God for their vivid Catholic intelligence, such as Fr. Divo Barsotti, - who unanimously stress that receiving the Eucharist is not an “optional” part of mass participation. Fr. Barsotti, the great monk and Tuscan preacher who, amongst other things taught sacramental theology for thirty years, wrote: “The Eucharistic mystery that Jesus passed on to the Church, embodies in some way death on the cross: not only does it remind us of it, it is also an enactment of the final act of sacrifice that he performed for the world’s salvation. In other words, faithful participate in the victim’s manducation. This is one of the most definite and perhaps greatest acquisitions of the Second Vatican Council” (Don Divo Barsotti, Pasqua, p. 63, San Paolo editions).

Before the last Council, Barsotti said in the same book, “Communion was said to be an integral past of Mass. The Council says that Communion is an essential part, as consecration is.” In fact, “in the sacrifice on the cross, men could not immediately communicate with the victim being sacrificed,” while in the Eucharist “Jesus shows us the sacramental sign of the bread and wine so they can communicate with men, since men can communicate with the victim offered to God”. Jesus himself “presented the mystery of his death under the sign of the sacrificial banquet”. This is why for faithful, receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, is as “essential” as consecration. The Church is guided toward this understanding precisely thanks to the path of contemplation of the Eucharistic mystery that began once again with the Council of Trent, Barsotti underlined. “Mass,” Fr. Divo wrote, “is real sacrifice, as the Council of Trent stated and Communion is now essential and not an integral part of the Eucharistic mystery, as it allows us to participate fully in its sacrifice”. The celebration of Eucharistic sacrifice, says the paragraph 1382 of the Catholic Catechism, “is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us”.

These elementary expressions of Catholic faith in relation to Eucharistic communion, unanimously exclude the Eucharist as an optional practice that is subordinate to the “primary” duty of “going to mass”. They also suggest that it is not helpful to interpret participation in the sacrament merely as a “derogable” corollary of Eucharistic consecration, simply in order to use it as argument to back the claims of those who believe it is unnecessary and unacceptable in fact for changes to be made to the current rules on admission to the sacraments for remarried divorcees.

Bearing in mind the Lord’s invitation to take his Body and eat it and to take his Blood and drink it, every faithful is required to contemplate whether their conditions are such that they can participate in the Eucharist, starting with whether “God’s grace is upon” them. The whole of Christianity, is in that invitation extended by Christ to all men potentially, the event that brought faraway happiness close to us. In order to enjoy God, it is not enough to know that God is present. We must embrace Him and be embraced by Him. In Church life, this ordinarily happens in the sacraments too. These are the gestures with which the Lord communicates his efficient grace. If we want to avoid weakening the Church’s perception of the need for sacramental grace, thereby accelerating the Church’s secularisation “from the inside, these gestures can never be reduced to non-essential elements of liturgical and social practices of Church communities”.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/e...r-sinodo-famiglia-divorziati-risposati-44024/

 

David, she's talking about the SHEPHERDS of the sheep here. The shepherd needs to be solid in his faith to be able to protect/guide his sheep in his fold. Strike the shepherd and the sheep scatter.

 

Well David, you can call the progressive agenda in the synod a way to show "varied thinking on the best way to encourage men to walk with Christ in their lives", but in reality telling people who are civilly divorced and remarried or active homosexuals that they can receive the Holy Eucharist will misguide them into thinking sin is not sin. That is not merciful. The Church maintains the policy of excomunication to shake people up and yes, scare them a bit into realizing they are on the wrong road. This is no game, these liberal prelates are dragging souls to Hell with them by distorting Catholic teaching. This is one of the main threads of many prophecies of our time.

"Many Cardinals, Many Bishops And Many Priests Are On The Road To Perdition And Taking Many Souls With Them." -Garabandal

 

So...difficult

What would Jesus do? I totally understand that Pope Francis wants all opinions brought to the Synod. By handpicking Cardinal Cupchec, he truly brought all voices to the Synod. To say there is no sacred scripture at Synod is a little far feached. The Synod is also a giant retreat. I can understand, my brothers on the forum, are upset that they would allow such speeches at Synod. But i think it is necessary to have all views before final presentation is made. If those views were not given at Synod...then it would not have been a Synod.

But that leaves two important questions.

1. Will the Holy Father give in to the culture of death? I doubt it...all His words have been pretty traditional when push came to shove.

2. Now that the progressive/heretical Bishops have come out...what should the Our Holy Father do with them? Maybe this is the schism that is talked about. I'm not sure once the Synod is over... the Holy Father can allow them to continue on the path of perdition.

Great burden for Papa Francis...His only job is to save souls and take them from the snares of the "created one".

At one time I was happy about all of this.... but the ramifications are huge. I will continue praying.

May the Holy Spirt lead all

 

I disagree, because to your average everyday person, they are hearing these things come out of the Synod and are thinking that the Church can change doctrine, because of how the Synod information is portrayed in the media. The damage is being done now, just like it was with Humanae Vitae.

 

Most people don't know or understand this, especially non-Catholics or poorly catechized Catholics.

 

I think Pope Francis has, possibly without intending it, opened a Pandoras box. Everyone was told to come out in the open and say what they really felt about these issues. It would be difficult for him now to punish those bishops who did just what he asked for even if they came out with very Un-Catholic ideas. I do not envy him his job.