[Faith Presses On]

There’s abundant evidence of Pope Francis’ unbiblical beliefs and agendas, though. That’s just from his own words, which paint a picture of what his beliefs are, and also show the strategy that he and most of the Catholic leadership are using. They *are* duping people, but it’s not liberals, but the “true believers” who seem to believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church. There has already been de facto change that has already affected people.

Pope Francis (and most of the Catholic leadership, judging by the recent synod alone) is simply double-tongued, and like a man who openly sleeps half of his nights out of the house with another woman, yet tells his wife he still loves her and is being perfectly faithful, and points to the nights he’s home with her as proof of it.

And let me tell you, I would be reluctant to be so definite about anything unless the proof was there, and that’s even more so when we are speaking of anything having to do with God, but again, there is so much evidence of what the Pope is working towards, which is already affecting changes, that it is unmistakable.

The Bible tells us we need to have a love of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2), that the Lord will give us wisdom if we ask in faith (James), that David prayed for Him to correct and lead him (Psalm 139), that we are to test the spirits (1 John 4), and of apostate and failing churches (Revelation). We aren’t to follow men, but to follow the Lord directly. He is our only Lord.

Now, on a matter of truth, shouldn’t Christians conclude there’s something very wrong with the Catholic Church when almost two-thirds of its leaders vote to approve homosexual unions, when Titus 3:10-11 says any heretic in the church should be warned at most twice, then put out of the church? If truth - the truth, because it comes from God - is what matters most, the answer is clear.

And let me also say that I don’t participate in discussions just to argue, which God’s Word forbids. I get involved out of concern, which is the Lord having given me burdens, as spiritual work.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...shouldn’t Christians conclude there’s something very wrong with the Catholic Church when almost two-thirds of its leaders vote to approve homosexual union?"

FaithPressesOn, I can appreciate your good motives.

However. There are sevferal false underlying assumptions as well as factual errors in just that one partial sentence above--- I don't say "lies" because I think surely they were inadvertent. You really should read the news more carefully so you don't fall into the traps set by reporters with an agenda.

• First --- I assume you're talking about the October Synod on the Family --- it was not a meeting of all the bishops. There were 253 bishops out of nearly 3,000 bishops worldwide --- but (since some were retired)only 181 voting members. So that's roughly 6-9% of the bishops, many invited by the Secretary General Lorenzo Baldisseri, who I can confidently say, would have been picked to reflect Baldisseri's "progressive" agenda. So this was a somewhat lopsided lefty slice, ~8%, of the bishops as whole.

• They did not vote on doctrine; doctrine was set off-limits as non-negotiable. There was "no suggestion" that the Church was going to give approval to same-sex marriage or to change its teaching on sexual morality (LINK)

• What did they vote on, then? This was Part 1, a kind of "pre-Synod", with the business part to convene in 2015. This Synod voted on what would be on the agenda to be discussed at the big 2105 Synod.

• Out of the 62 paragraphs of the final report, 3 failed to get the necessary 2/3 vote to be included in the report (which, I report, is not a vote on "doctrine" but a vote on what will be discussed in 2015.) All of the controversy swirls around these 3 paragraphs. The objections were not that they changed doctrine (impossible.) The objections were that the language was so "welcoming" of people in irregular unions (homosexual, divorced/remarried, cohabiting) that "Hey, we pastorally love you" was drowning out "You're living in habitual sin and you must, through God's grace, stop it!!" The language was too fluffy, every "i" dotted with a heart, so to speak --- and too ambiguous.

  Second, there was HUGE controversy that those paragraphs appeared in the Relatio summary at all since bishop after bishop got up and said they did not reflect the actual discussion and debate at the Synod. In other words, they were accusing Card. Péter Erdő, who prepared the summary, of sticking in liberal sentiments favored by members of his committee.

  The disputed paragraphs were rewritten to be slightly less fluffy and still didn't pass, but Pope Francis said they should be in there for future reference anyway, since it was only for discussion. This was worrisome. But again, the problem was not "change of doctrine." It was that damned ambiguity, which appears to be deliberately crafted. Red flags go up on this, and rightly so.

• This "craftiness" electrified opposition in an open, outspoken way not seen amongst the higher clergy in 50 years. That is the GOOD news of the relatio. This gives the African, Asian, Eastern European bishops time to consolidate what is going to be HUGE opposition between now and the 2015 Synod. The bishops themselves are going to beat back the (mainly German) liberal bishop-weasels and their weasel-worded statements. (Some of the Germans I think do want to change doctrine: they WILL be beaten back.)

  Almost nobody in the media noticed that even the controversial paragraphs (like p. 53) opposed the international LGBT "agenda" and gender ideology per se: "Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology."

What's my take on the situation? Cardinal Burke, the #1 hoppin-mad opponent of the Synod's weaselly ambiguity, was asked about Pope Francis' position and replied that he had no evidence regarding "his [the Pope's] alleged support of a relaxation of the Church's teaching."

That being the case, my own opinion is that Pope Francis wants the "progressive" soft-on-irregular-union faction to have the fullest possible oipportunity to get their views and their agenda out there in the open, because it galvanizes the faithful orthodox Catholics, the Christifideli. He wants the bishops to come to the Big Synod in 2015 --- especially the Australians, the Africans and the Poles--- and soundly beat back the wicked Kasper (German liberal)agenda.

That's my take: Pope Francis wants the true doctrine upheld, and he wants it done by the faithful Bishops soundly thwacking the "progressives." It's well underway: Cardinal Burke said the 10 working groups (which were essentially language subgroups) have already written their own critiques, and have refused to hand them over to Fr. Lombardi (the suave Press Secretary) for blenderization. They're getting savvy.

So the Shepherds are going to thwack the wolves-in-shepherds'-clothing. And then POpe Francis is going to come in and ratify the result. It's Jesus' mandate to Peter (Luke 22:32-32):

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."