The names of the Bishops in each of the synodical groups is to be witheld "to show forth the spirit of the Synod, which is a spirit of communion".
The duty of bishops when they are gathered together in councils or synods is, above all, to bear open witness to the Deposit of Faith which, handed openly down through the Apostles, they and their respective churches have each received, so as to teach it authoritatively and openly, each of them from his own cathedra. By these means, the world will know, from the open harmony of all the successors of the Apostles, what Christ's truth is.
When the Bergoglianists tried a dodge like this once before, Cardinal Mueller protested. He declared, so very rightly, that the People of God had the right to know what their Bishop was teaching.
I am having trouble thinking of anything more corrupt and corrupting than this crude attempt so to manage gatherings of bishops that they can be manipulated into consenting to error, or appearing to do so.
The history of Councils established criteria by which it could be known whether conciliar deliberations and decisions are to be regarded as valid. Blessed John Henry Newman, characteristically, visited this area of historical theology in the nervous aftermath of Vatican I (Ker pp 654sqq).
Since a 'synod', even if backed by a pope, clearly has less authority than an Ecumenical Council, we need to revisit this topic now. All the more so because of the preposterous recent Bergoglianist claim that synodical statements, provided the pope likes them, come to us with the guarantee of the Petrine Magisterium.
Has Newman's phrase for the ultrapapalists of his own time "an aggressive insolent faction" ever been more true than it is in the context of today's realities? But Newman also wrote "We have come to a climax of tyranny". I find this both sobering and curiously comforting. Today, with its woes, is not the first time that the Catholic Faith has been under lethal attack from a corrupt hyperpapalist establishment. God has always sent an Athanasius or a Newman.
19 October 2018
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
In today's more grace-filled time, no-one would go so far as to say with JHN,
“But we must hope, for one is obliged to hope it, that the Pope will be driven from Rome, and will not continue the Council, or that there will be another Pope. It is sad he should force us to such wishes.”
(Newman’s Letter to Fr. Ambrose St. John, 22 August, 1870)
"synodical statements, provided the pope likes them, come to us with the guarantee of the Petrine Magisterium"
In fact, local or regional councils, like those of Orange or Toledo, which have the approval of the Holy See, come just after the Ecumenic Councils, in authority, I will recall a list of 10 topoi, starting with Bible text, on which to decide any theological question.
In such a case, the approval of the Popes who for instance approved I Council of Toledo (in which you find "filioque" way before the Orthodox claim to have found it in III Council of Toledo), is weightier than the authority of individual bishops voting in it (against Priscillianism).
It is comforting that in one of those descriptions of the the true form of Christianity in the Essay on Development, Newman considers it distinctive of the true Church "that heresies are rife and bishops negligent within its own pale."
John 3:19-21: And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.
Father, thank you for this clear and reassuring post. Every day the cynical manipulation of this Synod is becoming more evident.
When I read things like that, I think of a group of thugs or villains who do their wicked work in the dark to obscure their actions.
Is this not utterly ridiculous? It would be, if it weren't so sad. Honestly, what is even going on? Synods being carried out in such secrecy! Do those people not understand what they are doing? Do they actually believe their work is guided by the Holy Ghost? But no one shall find out what they are planning, to later reveal the big surprise?
Have they gone crazy? And I mean this not as a rhetoric question. I am very sincerely of the opinion that those men have lost their mind, and ability to use reason. They should all go see a psychiatrist.
God has always sent an Athanasius or a Newman. Now He is sending Vigano!
"MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN" Daniel 5:25
Ridiculous, done with obvious had intentions, and not fooling anyone.
Sigh. May the Lord have mercy on us.
Why must the show go on? The previous synod revealed beyond any possible doubt, that foul play was the order of the day. A rigged show synod softening us up for the arrival of the foul smelling Amoris. Why orthodox Catholic bishops turn up to get mugged once again escapes me. After the Synod is over should they not be going to confession begging pardon for being a willing accomplice to a crime? Surely the end is nigh when Bishops accept that damage limitation is their best or only option? When will the majority of genuine Roman Catholic Bishops abandon their unacceptable silence and stand up and play the man? Instead of making good mannered and well-intentioned interventions, should they not have stood up and shouted loudly 'Rigged synods no more,false gospels no more, barefaced mendacity no more, sanctioned cover-ups no more, insults no more, bully boy Bishlops no more, creative liturgies no more,evil called good news no more, gay is ok clerics no more, extremely wealthty Cardinals no more etc no more?
Could someone post a link or two to more about this?
I, too, find the withholding of names to be close to a crime against the church. The laity must be able to hold bishops accountable!
Post a Comment