James Martin, S.J., heresiarch Jesuit manipulates publicly, the reception and nature of the Holy Eucharist!

"I believe, of course, that it's the Body and Blood of Christ, but you know, as Pope Francis said, communion is not a reward for the perfect.  It is medicine for the sick.  It is medicine for those who need it.   So, you know, you look at the Last Supper, I mean, were the disciples to whom Jesus gave communion all perfect?  Absolutely not.  I mean, he gave communion to Judas, for pete's sake.  So, I think we need to get away from this idea that you need to be perfect in order to approach the communion rail."

“What makes people hypocrites? They disguise themselves, they disguise themselves as good people: they make themselves up like little holy cards, looking up at heaven as they pray, making sure they are seen—they believe they are more righteous than others, they despise others.”  Pope  Francis (source)

I'm happy to know that in James Martin's parish there is a "communion rail," perhaps he would send us a picture. 

It is good to see that more than a few bloggers and haters on Twitter have noticed this man's agenda and heterodoxy.

Father Dwight Longenecker writes:

Fr. Martin has set up a straw man, and this is a typical tactic of the progressive propagandist. They portray those who oppose them as wild eyed, frenzied lunatics while they, of course, are the mild mannered, smiling and reasonable voice of common sense. Really? I expect there are some Catholics who do “hate” LGBT people”, but I haven’t met any. It suits Fr Martin, however, to pump up the hate speech because it’s easy to hate the haters. Consequently by pumping up the hate speech he raises the level of hatred. Those who pump up the accusations of hate pump up hate. They should be reminded that not everyone who disagrees with the LGBT agenda is a bigoted, self righteous, legalistic hater. Bullying others by calling them self righteous, legalistic haters weakens one’s position.Fr Martin is smart.  He should be better than that.

Keep it coming James; you're just too much fun. Almost as much as my Basilian friend.

Now, for a little irony courtesy of our Jesuit friend with an acknowledgment for finding it to One Mad Mom.

Well, if calling people "haters" is not an "ad hominem attack" then, I don't know what is. 

Who gave this boy his First Holy Communion?

H/T to The Hirsch Files

#JamesMartinSJBlockParty
https://www.facebook.com/FrJamesMartin/?fref=ts
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ

James Martin, S.J. - distorts and manipulates Synod document on Facebook and CNN

Jesuit priest James Martin of America Magazine has become infamous on Twitter. Calling out people as "haters" and learning from Tom Rosica how to block critics to the point where the #RosicaBlockParty has been joined by the #JamesMartinSJBlockParty. Silly boys, did you not know that a second browser or account solves that problem and a copy and paste of the tweet does the trick?

James Martin is a "homosexualists" and an "adulterist." He has pushed these agendas before and during the Synod and he continues to do so and in ways dangerous to souls, in spite of what he says about, "haters."

You, my dear Catholic, have a duty - to call out malefactors such as this Jesuitical heresiarch. He, who would be beaten out the Society by Saints such as Ignatius, Francis Xavier, Jean de Brebeuf and Paul Miki for his heterodoxy and his lies, can not be allowed to confuse and distort. When men such as these take this Synod and its mediocre and ambiguous texts and twist them for their own advantage and those whose bidding they undertake, they must be called out and challenged.

Note very carefully. The Synod has not changed one thing. 

A synod is an advisory body. The Pope can do something or everything with the advice he has been given. He can do all or he can do nothing. No Law has changed. No Doctrine has changed. What has changed is how the document will be used to manipulate an agenda, as this Jesuit is doing and which we must confront everywhere. Unlike our parents and grandparents after Vatican II who had little knowledge and no tools, we are different.

What has also changed is that we have a Pope who seems to relish in calling people names giving a clue of how he thinks and how he might act in terms of the Synod report, but that is for another post.

Martin writes about "change" and asks why some Catholics are so 'afraid of it." The matter of change was dealt with quite well by the prolific hymn-writer (Faith of Our Fathers is one), Rev. F.W. Faber, Cong. Orat. This convert from Anglicanism and Blessed John Newman contemporary, said:

"All change is bad from its very nature. It is full of evil: it unsettles and disturbs, it is full of the world, it is the very spirit of the world and nothing worse can be said of it. Whenever we are tempted to change any thing, we must not only be quite sure that the old system contained evils, but also that those evils were more numerous and more important, than the ones we must inevitably bring to change. ... but change in religion is of all things most perilous." 

Let's take a look at Martin's words and rebuke him, shall we? 

Why are some Catholic so afraid of change?

The Rev. James Martin is a Jesuit priest, editor at large of America and author of the new novel "The Abbey." The views expressed in this column belong to Martin.

 
Father James Martin(CNN)
The Synod on the Family, the gathering of bishops from around the world that just concluded, changed no Catholic doctrine. None. Yet, Martin on Facebook was telling the divorced and remarried that they could now, after searching their "conscience" in the internal forum, receive Holy Communion. Martin knows that that is a discipline but it based on Scripture, but the reader, catholic or otherwise, does not. Martin is twisting the language so that the problem is with those who oppose it. But you wouldn't know that from the fierce reactions the synod evoked. Even the possibility that the church might deal more openly with, for example, divorced and remarried Catholics or the LGBT community, sent some Catholics into a near frenzy. The Church has always been open with people. Those in adultery and those suffering from same-sex attraction have the same opportunity as you and I. Go for spiritual direction, confess your sins, amend your life and you're good to go. Martin also uses the homosexualist language, without stating that anyone who thinks that they are "trans-gendered" is suffering from mental illness. He would rather leave them in their pathological state than even give them the medical and psychiatric help they need to say nothing of the spiritual. It seemed out of proportion to the synod's discussions as well as the final document, a rather workaday overview of issues related to the family. The final report did not, for example, say that divorced and remarried could return to Communion. But you did. Instead it talked about possible avenues of reconciliation that already existed. Nor did it approve same-sex marriage. Instead it spoke of respecting LGBT Catholics. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church has always stated - again, a manipulation of the truth. Overall, the document stressed two concepts: "accompaniment" and "discernment." The church must accompany families in the complexity of their lives and use discernment, a form of prayerful decision-making, to help people arrive at good decisions based on church teaching. The final document is not even the final word. Pope Francis will most likely issue his own document within a few months, summing up the synod's findings and perhaps moving the discussion farther. Or he may do nothing at all. Catholic bishops conclude 'spicy' meeting with compromise Nice word choice, Padre,  But even the hint of change prompted outrage -- which was directed not only at Pope Francis, but also the bishops at the synod, Catholic commentators, and from time to time, me. At times, the level of sheer spite was astounding. Martin is clearly shocked that he can't get away with Clericalism! Why? First, let's give the benefit of the doubt to people upset by Pope Francis and some of the synod's discussions. Those disturbed by the possibility of change are usually devout Catholics who believe that the law is an important part of Catholic tradition. And it is. Make no mistake: Jesus himself said he came to "fulfill the law." Many of the church's rules flow directly from the Gospels. Just consider divorce, the synod topic that captured much of the attention in the West. It is unequivocally stated by Jesus to be wrong. Laws also are part of tradition, which Catholics believe is guided by the Holy Spirit. Even if certain rules do not come from the lips of Jesus, but rather from popes or other councils like Vatican II, they are considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus, another reason to oppose change: Why would we change something that either comes from Jesus or is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit? Martin knows well what scripture says, he is playing a game here and blaming it on God the Holy Spirit Himself:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you. let that one be accursed!" 

It's hard to change the Catholic Church -- even if you're the Pope So some of the consternation is understandable. Some, however, is harder to understand. For if you're a devout Catholic who believes in the guidance of the Spirit, then you should also trust that the same Spirit is guiding Pope Francis and the synod. Sadly, in some corners that trust seems to have evaporated after the Pope's election, to be replaced with doubt, suspicion and anger. The Holy Spirit brings wisdom, He brings coolness, He brings refreshment. The continual resort to the Holy Spirit is blasphemy, He does not bring confusion. The spirit Martin writes of is not of God, it is from a different place. Again why? First, Catholics today often conflate dogma, doctrine and practice. In the most basic (and simplified) theological terms dogma refers to our core beliefs. For example, beliefs like the Resurrection: That's foundational. Doctrine encompasses the overall teachings of the church. For example, the teaching on birth control. A Jesuit mentioned "birth control?" Hell has frozen over and pigs can fly! Every doctrine is important, but not every doctrine is dogma. Finally, pastoral practice refers to how those doctrines are applied in real life. For example, how does a priest counsel a person who uses birth control? That it is a mortal sin and they must stop using artificial birth control and must conform their thinking to the mind of the Church as expressed in Casti conubbii and Humanae vitae and Familiaris Consortio. In the past few decades, we have seen these three categories collapsed together, at least in the popular Catholic imagination. It is as if every teaching is seen as dogma. And this has had disastrous effects. Because a change in one is seen as an attack on everything. In this view, changing the way that the church treats divorced and remarried Catholics is not simply an attack on pastoral practice, but on doctrine and perhaps even dogma. This is not to diminish important teachings, but rather to put them in their perspective. Traditionally, we believe in a "hierarchy of truths," in which some teachings are simply more important than others. Obviously, the Resurrection is more important than what your pastor says about a local political candidate. The collapse of these three categories, then, means that even the hint of change is a threat. Thus some of the anger. Second, change itself may be difficult for some Catholics because it threaten one's idea of a stable church. Yet the church has always changed. Not in its essentials, but in some important practices, as it responds to what Jesus called the "signs of the times." The Church, it seems in Martin's view, must take on the stench of the world. Nobody is rejecting the divorced and remarried, nobody is rejecting those who suffer with same-sex attraction. It is a lie to say they do. We don't want to treat them any differently but they cannot receive Holy Communion without Confession, penance and amendment of life. Just like me. They can come to Mass, sing in the choir perhaps, be a part of the community and be respected and loved. They cannot serve at the Altar, Ambo or be Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, period! What Martin and his ilk want is a complete destruction of three sacraments in some idea of false mercy - Matrimony, Penance and the Holy Eucharist. Think of the changes wrought by the Second Vatican Council: The church's relations with the Jewish people changed utterly. The translation of the Mass from the Latin into vernacular languages changed the way we worship. Both were immense changes -- and necessary changes. No Council needed to be called to change relations with our Jewish brethren, any Pope could have done that. His ignorance on liturgy, he is a Jesuit after all, and the Council is great. The language of the Mass was not to be changed completely but that is another debate and more than language changed along with it, the Rite itself was drastically altered, right Voxers? Third, a darker reason for the anger: a crushing sense of legalism of the kind that Jesus warned against. Sadly, I see this evident in our church, and it is ironic to find this in those who hew to the Gospels because this is one of the clearest things that Jesus opposed: "You load people with burdens hard to bear and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them!" he said in the Gospel of Luke. Here we go, We are the legalists. We are the Pharisees. The legalist and Pharisees wanted to burden people with the impossible. This is not what we are talking about. Holy Communion is the issue. Not kindness. Martin is twisting, he is engaging in polemics and manipulations. We have a Jewish senior's building in Toronto where the elevator stops at every floor on the Sabbath because pushing the button would break Sabbath laws. THAT is what Jesus was talking about when he said "loading people with burdens" such as two refrigerators in the kitchen as is done today!  As the Pope said in his closing remarks to the synod, the person who truly follows the doctrine is not the one who follows the letter of the law, but its spirit. The Pope is wrong. Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments," the Law. He also said, "I have not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it." Law keeps peace. Law keeps order. Law provides justice. What Martin wants is spiritual anarchy. Fourth, even darker reasons for the anger: a hatred of LGBT Catholics that masks itself as a concern for their souls, a desire to shut out divorced and remarried because they are "sinful" and should be shut out of the church's communion, and a self-righteousness and arrogance that closes one off to the need for mercy. Also, a mere dislike of change because it threatens the black-and-white worldview. I hate no man. I hate no one with same-sex attraction. That is not what this is about. Martin is a deceiver. He is a liar. This is about people in states of mortal sin committing another mortal sin of sacrilege. This is about leaving people in their sin of adultery and sodomy. Martin wants to leave them there, we want to call them out and to Christ. Who gave this man his first Holy Communion? But change began in the church almost as soon as the church began. St. Paul prevailed over St. Peter -- the "rock" upon which Jesus built his church -- over the question of whether the non-circumcised could be accepted into the faith. Without change early on, the church would have never moved beyond the Jewish community. St. Paul understood the need for change, even if it went against some cherished practices. Paul confronted the Pope and the Pope backed down because he was wrong. It will happen again. So did Jesus. He did not hesitate to bend or even set aside the rules if it meant applying more mercy. When he healed an infirm woman, painfully stooped over from arthritis or scoliosis, in the Gospel of Luke, on the Sabbath, he was critiqued for not following the rules. In response, he excoriates those who sought to lock him into unchanging legalisms: "Hypocrites!" They were hypocrites because they preached one thing and did another. Jesus told them "do as they say but not as they do." In other words. OBEY THE LAW but don't act as them. Who ordained this man? Fear of change holds the church back. And it does something worse. It removes love from the equation. In the past few weeks I have seen this fear lead to suspicion, mistrust and hate. And at the heart of this, I believe, is fear. As St. Paul said, perfect love drives out fear. But perfect fear drives out love.

What follows is from James Martin, S.J.'s facebook page from Saturday, October 26, 2015.

Cardinal Raymond Burke - Synod report "Lacks Clarity on Indissolubility of Marriage" - the battle lines are being drawn

Cardinal Burke: Final Report Lacks Clarity on Indissolubility of Marriage

•  

by Edward Pentin 10/26/2015  

Cardinal Raymond Burke, patron of the Knights of Malta and former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, has shared with the Register his initial reaction to the final report of the Synod on the Family.

He focuses on paragraphs 84-86 on divorce and remarriage, saying this section is of "immediate concern because of its lack of clarity in a fundamental matter of the faith: the indissolubility of the marriage bond which both reason and faith teach all men." He also says the way the quotation from Familaris Consortio is used is "misleading."

Here below is the cardinal's comment, followed by an English translation of paragraphs 84-86.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-burke-final-report-lacks-clarity-on-indissolubility-of-marriage/#ixzz3pgYiKLoy

The St. Gallen mafia machinations - the effect on the Conclave and the Synod

The themes of the Synod, the themes of the Sankt Gallen ‘mafia club’

ROME, October 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - During the Synod of Bishops on the Family, which took place from 5-25 October, two well-informed German Vatican experts and journalists – Paul Badde and Julius Müller-Meiningen – have made reports, independently of one another and from their own evidence, concerning the vexed question as to whether there was indeed an influential group called the “Sankt Gallen Group”. That group is alleged to consist of liberal-minded cardinals and bishops who worked for the election of a pope who would himself help push the Church into a liberalizing and authority-devolving direction.                                 

On 10 October, for example, Paul Badde gave an interview to the German section of the Catholic News Agency, CNA. Badde was asked about the then-circulating report about Cardinal Danneels and about his own public confession that there existed indeed a kind of “mafia club” and that he was also part of it. Badde answered candidly – after repeating the serious charges against Cardinal Danneels himself as a protector of pedophiles and a promoter of pro-abortion laws – and he then confirmed, from his own experience, that Danneels indeed was part of such a group, a “prideful participant of a 'sort of mafia' within the college of cardinals.”       

Read all of it at:                                                             https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-themes-of-the-synod-the-themes-of-the-sankt-gallen-mafia-club?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com

The closeness of the vote - the stacked deck did it, and who was that lay "brother" and why was he allowed to vote?

Dr. Robert Moynihan has just sent out a letter with the votes on the three closest paragraphs. Clearly, the Synod was stacked as is evidenced by the opposition to these most controversial paragraphs. There was one vote from a lay "brother." Who was he and why was he allowed to vote? A religious brother is a layman, because he is not cleric. 

Now we see clearly; as I wrote previously, as have others, the Synod was a sham. It should be forgotten and ignored along with those who made this "mess."  

The three paragraphs which received the lowest vote totals were Paragraphs 84, 85, and 86. These paragraphs, on "Discernment and Integration," deal with "the baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried." Paragraph 84 received 187 "yes" votes and 72 "no" votes. Paragraph 85 received 178 "yes" votes and 80 "no" votes. (Since 177 votes were needed for a two-thirds majority, this also passed, but it was close; though in this particular case, 173 votes were enough for a two-thirds majority of the 258 votes that were cast, as seven Fathers abstained; this paragraph received the lowest percentage of votes given to any paragraph.) Paragraph 86 received 190 "yes" votes and 64 "no" votes. Here are the paragraphs in question, in my own English translation (the official English translation is not yet available). The Three Less Unanimous Paragraphs Discernment and integration  84. The baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more integrated in the Christian communities in the different ways possible, avoiding any occasion of scandal.
 The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral accompaniment, in order that they know not only that they belong to the Body of Christ which is the Church, but can have a joyful and fruitful experience of it. They are baptized, they are brothers and sisters, the Holy Spirit pours out into them gifts and charisms for the good of all. Their participation can be expressed in different ecclesial services: it is therefore necessary to discern which of the various forms of exclusion currently practiced in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional realms can be overcome. They not only should not feel themselves excommunicated, but can live and mature as living members of the Church, feeling her to be a mother who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and who encourages them in the path of life and of the Gospel. This integration is also needed for the care and Christian education of their children, who must be considered the most important. For the Christian community, taking care of these people is not a weakening of their faith and testimony about the indissolubility of marriage: rather, the Church expresses in this very care her charity. 85. St. John Paul II offered a comprehensive criterion, which remains the basis for the evaluation of these situations: "Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to discern situations carefully. There is indeed a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have contracted a second marriage for the sake of the children, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous marriage, irreparably broken, had never been valid" (FC, 84).
 It is therefore the duty of priests to accompany the people concerned on the way of discernment according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the Bishop. In this process, it will be useful to make an examination of conscience, by means of moments of reflection and penance. The divorced and remarried should ask themselves how they have behaved towards their children when the conjugal union has entered into crisis; if there have been attempts at reconciliation; what is the situation of the partner who has been abandoned; what effect has the new relationship on the rest of the family and on the community of the faithful; what example it offers to young people who are preparing for marriage. A sincere reflection can strengthen trust in the mercy of God that is not denied to anyone. Moreover, one can not deny that in some circumstances "imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified" (CCC, 1735) due to various conditions. Accordingly, the judgment of an objective situation should not lead to a judgment on the "subjective culpability" (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration of June 24, 2000, 2a). Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act otherwise than they do. Therefore, while maintaining a general rule, it must be recognized that the responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking account of a properly formed conscience of the people, must take these situations into consideration. The consequences of acts taken are not necessarily the same in all cases. 86. The process of accompaniment and discernment orients these faithful to an examination of conscience regarding their situation before God. The interview with the priest, in the internal forum ("foro interno"), contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and on the steps that can foster it and make it grow. Given that in the law itself there is no graduality (cf. FC 34), this discernment will never be able to prescind from the needs of the truth and the charity of the Gospel proposed by the Church. In order for this to happen, the necessary conditions of humility, confidence, and love for the Church and its teaching, must be guaranteed, in the sincere search for God's will and the desire to achieve a more perfect answer to it. 

Modernist heresiarch James Martin, S.J. already interpreting Synod Relatio where "conscience" not truth, is the guide

It has been said over and over again. Those of us who stand by the Church have today been called out by the Bishop of Rome himself because we are not the "true defenders of doctrine" because we uphold the "letter." 

We are wrong because we do not uphold the "spirit."

No interest in "dialogue" from this Jesuit.

What follows is the first public scandal over the Synod document caused by a Catholic priest who has stated quite clearly for the world to see that through the "internal forum" the divorced and remarried can make the decision to receive the Holy Eucharist. This is the devolution of doctrine and it has been done by Francis the Bishop of Rome his gang of clericalist thugs, particularly the puffed up with pride and arrogant, Jesuits. 

The apologists for Francis and those engaged in papolatry cannot deny it any longer.  

The "spirit" of Francis's vision is already being implemented.

Welcome to Vatican III.

It's not the letter of the "doctrine" but the "spirit" - and you're a jealous sibling or an upset labourer if you disagree, so there, now shut-up and do what I say!

"The Synod experience also made us better realize that the true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit."

May God protect us from these malefactors and St. Michael come to our aid. 

Gird your loins brothers and sisters. It has begun.

Final Discourse of Pope Francis

By Pope Francis

Dear Beatitudes, Eminences and Excellencies,
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I would like first of all to thank the Lord, who has guided our synodal process in these years by his Holy Spirit, whose support is never lacking to the Church.

My heartfelt thanks go to Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod, Bishop Fabio Fabene, its Under-Secretary, and, together with them, the Relator, Cardinal Peter Erdő, and the Special Secretary, Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Delegate Presidents, the writers, consultors and translators, and all those who have worked tirelessly and with total dedication to the Church: My deepest thanks!

I likewise thank all of you, dear Synod Fathers, Fraternal Delegates, Auditors and Assessors, parish priests and families, for your active and fruitful participation.

And I thank all those unnamed men and women who contributed generously to the labours of this Synod by quietly working behind the scenes.

Be assured of my prayers, that the Lord will reward all of you with his abundant gifts of grace!

As I followed the labours of the Synod, I asked myself: What will it mean for the Church to conclude this Synod devoted to the family?

Certainly, the Synod was not about settling all the issues having to do with the family, but rather attempting to see them in the light of the Gospel and the Church’s tradition and two-thousand-year history, bringing the joy of hope without falling into a facile repetition of what is obvious or has already been said.

Surely it was not about finding exhaustive solutions for all the difficulties and uncertainties which challenge and threaten the family, but rather about seeing these difficulties and uncertainties in the light of the Faith, carefully studying them and confronting them fearlessly, without burying our heads in the sand.

It was about urging everyone to appreciate the importance of the institution of the family and of marriage between a man and a woman, based on unity and indissolubility, and valuing it as the fundamental basis of society and human life.

It was about listening to and making heard the voices of the families and the Church’s pastors, who came to Rome bearing on their shoulders the burdens and the hopes, the riches and the challenges of families throughout the world.

It was about showing the vitality of the Catholic Church, which is not afraid to stir dulled consciences or to soil her hands with lively and frank discussions about the family.

It was about trying to view and interpret realities, today’s realities, through God’s eyes, so as to kindle the flame of faith and enlighten people’s hearts in times marked by discouragement, social, economic and moral crisis, and growing pessimism.

It was about bearing witness to everyone that, for the Church, the Gospel continues to be a vital source of eternal newness, against all those who would “indoctrinate” it in dead stones to be hurled at others.

It was also about laying closed hearts, which bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.

It was about making clear that the Church is a Church of the poor in spirit and of sinners seeking forgiveness, not simply of the righteous and the holy, but rather of those who are righteous and holy precisely when they feel themselves poor sinners.

It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God, and to transmit the beauty of Christian Newness, at times encrusted in a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible.

In the course of this Synod, the different opinions which were freely expressed – and at times, unfortunately, not in entirely well-meaning ways – certainly led to a rich and lively dialogue; they offered a vivid image of a Church which does not simply “rubberstamp”, but draws from the sources of her faith living waters to refresh parched hearts.¹

And – apart from dogmatic questions clearly defined by the Church’s Magisterium – we have also seen that what seems normal for a bishop on one continent, is considered strange and almost scandalous for a bishop from another; what is considered a violation of a right in one society is an evident and inviolable rule in another; what for some is freedom of conscience is for others simply confusion. Cultures are in fact quite diverse, and each general principle needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied.²

The 1985 Synod, which celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, spoke of inculturation as “the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity, and the taking root of Christianity in the various human cultures”.³

Inculturation does not weaken true values, but demonstrates their true strength and authenticity, since they adapt without changing; indeed they quietly and gradually transform the different cultures.⁴

We have seen, also by the richness of our diversity, that the same challenge is ever before us: that of proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of today, and defending the family from all ideological and individualistic assaults.

And without ever falling into the danger of relativism or of demonizing others, we sought to embrace, fully and courageously, the goodness and mercy of God who transcends our every human reckoning and desires only that “all be saved” (cf. 1 Tm 2:4). In this way we wished to experience this Synod in the context of the Extraordinary Year of Mercy which the Church is called to celebrated.

Dear Brothers,

The Synod experience also made us better realize that the true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit; not ideas but people; not formulae but the gratuitousness of God’s love and forgiveness. This is in no way to detract from the importance of formulae, laws and divine commandments, but raather to exalt the greatness of the true God, who does not treat us according to our merits or even according to our works but solely according to the boundless generosity of his Mercy (cf. Rom 3:21-30; Ps 129; Lk 11:37-54). It does have to do with overcoming the recurring temptations of the elder brother (cf. Lk 15:25-32) and the jealous labourers (cf. Mt 20:1-16). Indeed, it means upholding all the more the laws and commandments which were made for man and not vice versa (cf. Mk 2:27).

In this sense, the necessary human repentance, works and efforts take on a deeper meaning, not as the price of that salvation freely won for us by Christ on the cross, but as a response to the One who loved us first and saved us at the cost of his innocent blood, while we were still sinners (cf. Rom 5:6).

The Church’s first duty is not to hand down condemnations or anathemas, but to proclaim God’s mercy, to call to conversion, and to lead all men and women to salvation in the Lord (cf. Jn 12:44-50).

Blessed Paul VI expressed this eloquently: “”We can imagine, then, that each of our sins, our attempts to turn our back on God, kindles in him a more intense flame of love, a desire to bring us back to himself and to his saving plan… God, in Christ, shows himself to be infinitely good… God is good. Not only in himself; God is – let us say it with tears – good for us. He loves us, he seeks us out, he thinks of us, he knows us, he touches our hearts us and he waits for us. He will be – so to say – delighted on the day when we return and say: ‘Lord, in your goodness, forgive me. Thus our repentance becomes God’s joy”.⁵

Saint John Paul II also stated that: “the Church lives an authentic life when she professes and proclaims mercy… and when she brings people close to the sources of the Saviour’s mercy, of which she is the trustee and dispenser”.⁶

Benedict XVI, too, said: “Mercy is indeed the central nucleus of the Gospel message; it is the very name of God… May all that the Church says and does manifest the mercy God feels for mankind. When the Church has to recall an unrecognized truth, or a betrayed good, she always does so impelled by merciful love, so that men may have life and have it abundantly (cf. Jn 10:10)”.⁷

In light of all this, and thanks to this time of grace which the Church has experienced in discussing the family, we feel mutually enriched. Many of us have felt the working of the Holy Spirit who is the real protagonist and guide of the Synod. For all of us, the word “family” has a new resonance, so much so that the word itself already evokes the richness of the family’s vocation and the significance of the labours of the Synod.⁸

In effect, for the Church to conclude the Synod means to return to our true “journeying together” in bringing to every part of the world, to every diocese, to every community and every situation, the light of the Gospel, the embrace of the Church and the support of God’s mercy!

Thank you!

Do not be optimistic friends - it is not going to be good

"Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. 

And dying in your beds, many years from now,

would you be willing to trade all the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives,

but they'll never take our Church!"

Friends, today is the day.

As I write, the bishops are getting the report, the Relatio. They have been ordered by the Synod manipulators, Balidsseri and the others to remain silent on it. These malefactors, and that is what they are, demanded of the Synod Fathers that they do their work in secret and then demand that when they go home, the Relatio is not to be shared. Yesterday, the bishops had to fight as they were not going to be even given copies, it would have simply been read to them. By whom, one wonders. 

(The Synod decisions on the fly have now released it in Italian only - they can't even get their skullduggery right)

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2015/10/24/0816/01825.html

Do you believe how evil these men are?

The Catholic faithful have a divine right to know what Holy Mother Church's prelates are thinking and doing outside of the confessional. We demand to know what is in the Relatio!

We must depend on some bishop to let sunlight be the best disinfectant.

Balidisseri, Lombardi, Forte, Wuerl, Cupich- these are men committing great evil in the darkness.

I call upon faithful bishops to defy their heinous order of secrecy and release to the Catholic faithful the truth. The truth that these malefactors want hidden. What will it cost you? I have an extra room and Fox and Vox are good cooks. You can live here.

The faithful bishops should have walked out.

What kind of evil do these men do under the nose of the Pope himself? We know some of their names don't we friend? The Lord knows all of them and He will execute his judgement on these faithless and evil men. These Freemasons and sodomites in the priesthood and episcopacy. These vile and disgusting and immoral sons of Satan. These men and the adulterists and homosexualist ideas and lusts in their poisoned minds and souls filled with bile. Their Hell will be severe and they will go there for engaging in a Synod of Heresy, a Synod of Sodomy, a Synod of Adultery. Repent or be damned. 

Is the Pope behind this? My sources say that they are manipulating him. Why he allows this we do not know. Is he part of the problem? At least in that he allows it, yes. He needs to dismiss these heretics. He cannot ask for "pardon" for all these scandals and allow them to continue under his nose. 

Pope Francis, find your courage! Out these men before it is too late. God and history are both terrible judges.

When we look back over the last three decades, Benedict XVI and John Paul II allowed them to get away with it as well. What they have with Francis is either a simpleton and innocent or a cooperator. Our problem is, we don't know really know which it is. We can say that if he is a simpleton and ignorant, then he is being used and abused. Then what is it? What is it that prevents this Pope from condemning these heresiarchs?

In the post below, Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto hits back at Wuerl and Father Thomas Rosica over the Pope's message of questioning and openness and then their mockery of the thirteen when they tried to be open to the Pope. 

My contacts in Rome this morning tell me that there is little doubt that the letter of the thirteen was leaked by the synod agitators of heresy to make it appear that it was one of the thirteen in order to make them look like they were against the Pope. Cardinal Collins's comment to the Star, "What do we want, everyone to say nothing?" is one-hundred percent accurate. These Synod manipulators and deceivers want no dissent from their own dissent from the faith.

There are two possibilities; the Pope is an innocent, simple man with the best of intentions who has been used and abused and for whatever reason does not realise it or does not know what to do about it, if he does. You know the other possibility.

What I have been told, I will tell you exactly as it has been said to me.

The goal of these malefactors is divide us and make us look as if "we don't like the Pope."

Do not be optimistic.

This is the 43rd verse of a very bad song that had been written many, many years ago.

Pray the rosary.  

And mediate upon the lamentation of our Lord at Calvary.

Something some men have forgotten about.