Posted on 03/10/2015 6:37:11 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
A response to the [Lineamenta, the preparatory] document on the Synod of the Family, submitted to the Very Rev. Michael Pavlakovich, V.F. at the request of the Archbishop of Denver.
1. In the Preface the desire is expressed to "find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront." I suggest concentrating on one or two difficulties, and trying to solve those.
For example, if the Universal Church tried to stop cohabitation of couples, and was at all successful, then many other problems would improve. This would mean a united effort, with at least the Pope and the bishops working together. But trying to address all the numerous problems outlined in the Relatio at the same, time is not realistic.
2. The language of sin and redemption was missing from the documents. Instead, we were treated to sentences like "The challenge for the Church is to assist couples in their emotive maturation and affective development." This is an example of substituting sociology and psychology for the Word of God and the teaching of the Church, examples of which may be found throughout the document.
3. Many of the statements were too vague to understand. For example, "...a reflection capable of reframing the great questions about the meaning of human existence, can be responsive to humanity's most profound expectations." I do not know what this means. And there seems to be little in the document about our obligation to be responsive to the expectations of the Lord.
4. Throughout the document there is a sentimental notion of mercy which can be quite misleading. For example, "Jesus looked upon the women and men he met with love and tenderness...in proclaiming the demands of the Kingdom of God." Except when He didn't. The words He used to condemn the Pharisees were not words of tenderness.
5. It seems that the writers of these documents went to great lengths to avoid talking about sin. For example, "...the Church turns with love to those who participate in her life in an incomplete manner..." If there is no sin, then there is no need of salvation. Which is why I suppose, that the sentence continues with "...recognizing that the grace of God works also in their lives by giving them the courage to do good, to care for one another and to be of service to the community in which they live and work." There is no salvation in the "courage to do good etc.," as the pagans do as much.
6. I could find no distinction between short term and long term goals, or even a mention of the desirability of setting these.
7. In #32, there was a call for missionary conversion by everyone in the Church.
But for this to take place there must be doctrinal unity – a unity of faith – at least amongst the pope and the bishops. In the document there is no mention of this.
8. In the same paragraph we read "...the crisis of faith has led to a crisis in marriage and the family..."
I could not find a definition of this crisis of faith, nor what the causes of it are, in this document. Unless this is clarified, there will be business as usual, with no indication of how we can assess progress. The paragraph further states, "In the face of a strong faith, the imposition of certain cultural perspectives which weaken the family and marriage will cause no harm." This too is undefined, and in my opinion, naive.
There are elements of secular Western culture which can utterly erode the foundations of faith, and make it almost impossible to practice. Pornography is one of these, and it tears apart the family and the vocation to marriage, yet is not even mentioned in the Relatio, nor are other elements such as the current confusion about gender, or strains of feminism which are utterly opposed to the Church.
9. Beginning with #33, a list of solutions is proposed.
"Proclamation...in espousing values," "...a more positive approach to the richness of various religious experiences," and denunciations of poverty stemming from "market logic."
I have no idea what these mean.
Reading the Bible, increased catechesis, older couples lending a hand in formation are mentioned, and while these make sense, it seems to me that this has already been going on for some time. "Meaningful liturgies" are mentioned, but this is vague and sentimental.
10. The "trauma of family break-up" is mentioned, closely followed by a proposal to streamline the annulment process.
How such streamlining can possibly address the trauma is not discussed. We can streamline the process of annulment all we want, and the trauma to the children of divorce will remain.
11. Admittance of the divorced and remarried to the sacraments (bypassing the annulment process altogether) proposes in itself another question, namely, why not open the sacraments to anyone, for any reason, no matter what they have done or what their state of life is?
[12]. The section on persons with homosexual tendencies (#55) is exceedingly vague, with the exception of #56.
[13]. It was a relief to read #'s 57-58 and it’s clear teaching regarding the transmission of human life. It was the only part of the document that was clear to me.
In short, I found the document vague, secular, naive and sentimental. It was discouraging to read.
Sincerely,
The Rev. James W. Jackson, FSSP
This is in no way bashing Catholicism but Catholics had better sit back and test the spirit of what has been happening and is about to happen not only in the Catholic Church but all organized religion.
Perhaps the vagueries he has identified are the consequence of a deliberate tactic rather than the result of inadvertent imprecision and naivete.
"...Last month, Cardinal Walter Kasper just flatly stated that there were ambiguities deliberately inserted into Vatican II documents, leaving them subject to a multitude of interpretations, and as we all know, those interpretations which were collected under the misleading title, "Spirit of Vatican II," have been used to dismantle much of the Church, and build up in its place a Church overrun by modernism. .."
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2013/06/shock-admission-cardinal-kasper-in.html
“This is in no way bashing Catholicism but Catholics had better sit back and test the spirit of what has been happening and is about to happen not only in the Catholic Church but all organized religion.”
I’m all for it, but we have the Holy Spirit’s protection, while sects don’t. Bad teachers may abound, but bad teaching will not become authoritative doctrine in the Church.
The purpose of the dual Synod is to approve Communion for adulterers. And it is essential to note that approval of Communion for ANY grave sinners is approval of Communion for ALL grave sinners. Notice that the bishops who are leading the charge for the one are longtime practitioners of the other.
In the U.S., Wuerl, Dolan, O’Malley, Cupich, Gomez, Chaput, DiNardo, and about 95% of the rest of bishops all insist that their priests give Communion to abortionists.
This seemed to be an excellent analysis of the document. I haven’t read it, of course, but the priest’s description and analysis could be used for any document or statement that comes out of Rome nowadays.
Vague, sentimental to the point of smarminess, meaningless yet opposed to doctrine and meaning, and full of self-congratulatory gushing about “mercy,” a word that has been completely and utterly stripped of all meaning in this context. Come to think of it, that’s how I see most of the Pope’s statements, too
The document is vague, ambiguous, meaningless, and turgid.
Catholic documents, once upon a time, were notable for their clarity, consistency, and conciseness. It was practically one of the marks of the Church.
The Code of Canon Law continues to reflect this tradition. Little else that comes out of Rome does.
The bafflegab emitted by the Synod is cover for the only real agenda: approving Communion for adulterers, sodomites, abortionists, and all other public sinners.
I don't know who taught you that nonsense but anyone who reads scripture knows that every true believer has that same Spirit. And if you think that "church" somehow protects you from bad doctrine you had better think again.
“every true believer has that same Spirit.”
I never said anything about “every true believer” - and that of course is dabatable with sect members anyway - it is the CHURCH that has protection from the Holy Spirit and NOT sects invented by men like yours.
“And if you think that “church” somehow protects you from bad doctrine you had better think again.”
“church” - no. “Church” - yes. Since you can’t tell the difference (apparently) it is no surprise you can’t tell the difference in effcts either.
Not once in all of scripture does it say a "CHURCH" has protection against error. Six of the seven churches addressed in Revelation had already gone into error. The concept of "Church" put forth by the Catholic Church is no where found in scripture.
The “churches” mentioned in Revelation was not separate Christian churches. They were separate communities.
Only the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church has the assurance of God being with it till the end of time. The breakaway “churches” from the Reformation meet no criteria to even be called a Christian church. They have no sacraments, no priesthood and therefore no valid eucharist. They all teach a false religion.
“They have no sacraments, no priesthood and therefore no valid eucharist. They all teach a false religion.”
Your denomination didn’t define the word sacrament until 1200-1300 years after Christ nor were sacraments needed for salvation until the COT which was after the Reformation. So by your definition your denomination is a false religion, so I guess you are lost.
I do indeed have a Priest and he is forever and the only Priest a true Christian ever needs.
Hebrews 6:20 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
20 where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
The shedding of blood by Jesus Christ is good enough I don’t need to keep crucifying him over and over.
Hebrews 10:10 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
10 And it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
They were each addressed as separate entities. There was no hierarchy that was addressed who would then correct each of the assemblies.
You haven’t a clue about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit lives in Christians (humans) which make up the Church not in entities like your denomination.
1 Corinthians 3:16 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 6:19 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?
2 Corinthians 6:16 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we[a] are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will live in them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
2 Timothy 1:14 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
14 Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us.
Ephesians 5:18 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
18 Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit,
Here are a few more fyi.
Romans 8:11, John 16:13, Galatians 5:18, Galatians 5:22, Romans 8:9, Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6, 1 John 2:27
There is no office of priesthood in the New Testament ekklesia other than all true believers are priests with Christ alone as the High Priest. The Catholic priests wouldn't even qualify to be elders in the New Testament ekklesia thus the Catholic Church is ineligible to be called the ekklesia of Christ.
>>They all teach a false religion.<<
It's the Catholic Church teaches "another gospel". The Catholic Church itself admits it teaches things that can't be substantiated in scripture and Paul said anyone who taught something they didn't was preaching another gospel and should be considered accursed.
Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
They were Christian communities. THEY WERE NOT SEPARATE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.
“We know different”.
Yea you know more than 2,000 years of Catholic Church teachings and doctrine and know as much as all the Church fathers and historians combined. Just ask CynicalBear if you want to know the real truth about Christianity.
PS: Without the Catholic Church you would have never heard of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
Revelation 1: 20The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. 20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
Still seven separate churches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.