What the Synod of Bishops isn’t talking about (Hijacker Bruno Forte in charge of final report)

The final document of the Synod of Bishops is being written by Hungarian Cardinal Péter Erdő, general relator of the summit; Italian Archbishop Bruno Forte, the synod’s special secretary, and Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, head of the Vatican’s office for the synod of bishops. It is expected to be presented early next week.

Eight other synod members, with at least one representative from each continent, were additionally assigned to the document’s drafting committee, including Washington Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl.

The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops that is now coming to an end was called by Pope Francis to lay the groundwork for a year-long discussion to be held by local churches around the world.

The bishops will meet again in October, 2015 to discuss the family and to present a more definitive document to the pontiff. It will up to Francis to decide what to do with the advice

A Two-Minute YouTube video(LINK) which explains what we all need to keep in mind about the precious gift of Papal infallibility and how it actually works.

"In the end aren’t Catholics just supposed to follow the pope? "

That's true in one sense, but not true --- or at least not quite adequate --- in another.

Yes, the Pope is supposed to tell us what God commands. That's in the job description for sure.

But he is not an autocrat and NOT the only shepherd. His authority is at every point superseded by that of Christ, the supreme Authority; and also he is surrounded by that vast crowd of shepherds who came before him (2,000 years, 266 popes), and those shepherds all around him now who are called the bishops.

There's supposed to be an essential degree of continuity between him and the rest of them.

He is, as Christ said, to be feeding and caring for them, and also confirming them: (Luke 22:32) "Confirm (or 'strengthen') the brethren." They too have their own status as shepherds, and this is not merely derivative from the Pope's authority: they have their own proper "pedigree" of succession from the Apostles as well. The Pope is not to deal with them high-handedly as if they were dependents or franchisees.

This synod has certainly been a sausage-factory-tour for us all --- not always a pretty sight --- but the Holy Spirit will find a way to settle their hash. It may take the intervention of somebody quite outside the box, another St. Catherine of Siena, maybe. (She was a 14th century poor, humble, chaste and illiterate lady whom God called to more-or-less grab the pope and order him to get back to Rome and do his duty.)

It's a recurring theme: God picking a Nobody to get the Somebodies back on track: as has happened not infrequently in the Church's Providence-rescued past. Let us pray.

Catholics don’t just follow the pope. We follow the laws and traditions that go back to the earliest days of the church. Sometimes a pope will interpret them for the problems at hand, but that opinion has to be based on the ancient teachings.

(Example: Do Native Americans have souls? The pope said yes, because slaves were accepted as full fledged Christians at a time when the pagan world considered them talking “tools” without human rights. Ditto for abortion, which was condemned even in the early church in the didache, but at a time when it was impossible to tell early abortions from miscarriages or late periods, if a woman took a potion to bring on her period, it was not considered murder unless quickening had occured, which confirmed a pregnancy. When modern science showed that life was a continuum, the church went along with modern scientific thought).

The Pope is only infallible in areas of faith and morality when he states this pronouncement as infallible based on the ancient teachings. Anything outside of this is opinion, to be respected but not necessarily obeyed.

If the pope writes an encyclical on the economy, well, that is his opinion only.

But if the Pope insists that fornication is okay, he is wrong, because he would be going against the church law which goes back 2000 years.

So how does one remove a pope who is heretical? That is the question. So far, he hasn’t gone over the line. But a lot of people prophecized that the church will split into two churches, one in the third world, one in Europe. This is what we see in the Anglican church, where Asian and African bishops don’t go along with the “Church of what’s happening now” of the UK and USA.

In the US, we can almost predict which diocese would go along with the Europeans. Wuerl was gay friendly when he was in Pittsburgh, so write off Washington. But Chaput would hold the line in Philadelphia. Dolan of NYC would try to “compromise” and I am afraid Chicago would go along with Wuerl.

Catholics would probably just switch to their local Protestant churches that still back the bible, or if they are lucky to have a good Orthodox church in the area, probably switch over to one of these ancient churches.

Those who don’t care about Jesus will probably just go along with the modernists.

There have been schism in the past in the Catholic church, and even two popes at one time claiming to be the real one.
There are already modern several Schismatic churches out there, not to mention the Orthodox churches.

Already, African and Asian priests and ministers are preaching the gospel in Europe and America, so the church will survive.

The bad news is that the NWO will be able to take over the institutions of the church to push their agenda. (hospitals will push abortions and euthanasia, catholic colleges will welcome pro abortion politicians and ridicule believers, the schools will preach socialism to your kids...hey, lots of this has started already, thanks to lax bishops).

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.