Synod: Do Not Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory


Help Him to help you.

The day after the end of this mess, I am very worried that justified concerns about the weakness of the text may lead well-intentioned commenters to score self goals and, actually, involuntarily help the enemy.

Texts are texts. We consider them for what they say, not for what other people will pretend that they say. And we read them from a Catholic perspective, because this is what we are. 

The reality on the ground is this: the text does not say that adulterers can be readers at Mass. It does not say that adulterers can be godfathers at Catholic baptisms. It does not say that adulterers can be teachers at Catholic schools. It does not say that adulterers can receive communion. It does not in any way approve of gradualism. It does not in any way modify or deny Familiaris Consortio.  

All these things (the wrong readers, godfathers, teachers) can happen as a heresy-driven pathology and, factually, I am sure they do happen in places. But they happen because there is heretical will at play, not because the Relatio says so. The Relatio does not say any of this in the least. It is even very clear in the necessity to avoid scandal. It is also clear (if rather short) in the rejection of gradualism. But again, a text is not there to explain Catholicism to unbelievers. It merely needs to mention what believers already know. It’s a Relatio for Catholics, not a “comprehensive guide to orthodoxy for German heretics”.  

Cry “defeat against heresy” too much, and this becomes a very dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy. We have not been defeated. We have won. They have lost. 

When the heretics try to distort the text beyond recognition, as that scoundrel Schoenborn did yesterday, we do not help him in doing so. We reiterate Catholic teaching, and we defend a proper, Catholic understanding of texts that must be read in a Catholic perspective.

The story here is that at the Synod, Kasperism has been defeated, and it has been defeated on both counts of adulterers and perverts. There will be attempts to manipulate this text, but this is nothing new: heresy is always manipulation of texts, and there has never been any need of this final Relatio to promote any of them. We do not help the heretic to manipulate the text, but we denounce the manipulation and the heresy. Least of all we help Francis to try to introduce novelties based on what the synodal text does not say, but we help him to say that it does.  

 We must read and have the text read in the proper, Catholic way, that corresponds not only to the real meaning of the text, but to its only possible key of interpretation.

This, we do for two reasons: 

A) We insist on Catholics reading text as Catholics, not heretics. What the heretic imagines by reading a text is his problem. Better said, that he is a heretic is his problem. The Gospel is full of phrases that have been manipulated by heretics (divorce, “brothers of Christ”, “do not judge”, and so on). That’s what heretics do. As the Americans say: don’t be that guy! 

B) We are aware that a huge media effort is already underway to present a new “church of mercy”. We do not help the heretics to state their argument. On the contrary, we point out that this fantasy church is a heretical construction.

Do not play in the hands of the enemy. Condemn the weakness of the text. Blame the Synod Fathers for not having the guts to openly smash heresy. But do not say that these texts open the door to heretical activity or changes. Not only they don’t, but if you say that they do you help the heretics in their wicked purposes.

The texts that I have seen up to now are weak, but sound. The heretics have not got the text that they wanted. 

We decry that the Relatio is weak, but we do not make it unsound. Because if we do so, we create exactly the narrative that the Heretics want, and give them ourselves an interpretation of the texts that is exactly the one they want.

We have won, for heaven’s sake. It’s a 1-0 victory after a horrible and very dirty game, but a victory it is. 

Do not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 



Posted on October 25, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 18 Comments.

  1. But the same could be said about Vatican II documents and look where that got us. Plus we have Franciscus’ adverse comments relative to conservative prelates, et al.

    • The V II are far more ambiguous than this. The V II texts contain parts that are wrong (on religious freedom, etc). The text I have seen yesterday has nothing (that I could see) that is wrong. It is, therefore, vastly superior to the V II documents.

      As to the mess that has happened later, that was not necessarily the result of the texts, bad and wrong as they were. It was the result of the “spirit of V II” mentality that raged on afterwards. But again, if you start crying “heresy” where there isn’t, heresy is what you will soon have.


    • We have Franciscus adverse comments every day. The man is aching. May it long last.

  2. Well done, sir…well said

    A well deserved rest is in order…

  3. You are right this document is not a complete dog turd. It is however, the equivalent of a pair of sneakers that have been smeared with a little dog feces…stinky and something a sane person would never want in their home.

    • I would rather compare to that cheap frozen rice you find in the big supermarket.
      It’s what it says on the tin, but it’s fairly insipid, ultimately unsatisfactory, low quality food.

  4. Sorry, Mundabor. I’ve read the relevant paragraphs and I see them as a disaster in full. They are precisely what I expected. It is a 10,000 word essay focused on accompanying adulterers into full communion with mercy and at the discretion of local Bishops and communities. I see a very clear entrance for adulterers into full, official communion. The method of the Modernist is not Nuclear war against which forces array in bravery ready for martyrdom, but subversive war through confusion, misdirection and incrementalism in which opposition forces don’t have a clear idea of what or who the enemy is. That is clearly infused in this text.

    What was needed was a simple paragraph re-stating clearly the central Doctrine on sacramental marriage as divinely ordained from the Mind of God. Mercy comes from living precisely as God intended. The penitential path requires walking the RIGHT path according to God’s merciful law. Period, full stop, no exceptions. Same today as yesterday and tomorrow too. A confused world needed that. I do not see anything remotely like that, even reading between the lines of 84 – 86. The Mass Media and secular forces have everything they needed.

    This document, and the key Papal statement to come, opens a door for adulterous admittance never yet opened in Church history. From that starting point, and THAT is all they needed, a BREACH, a door open just a crack, and a shift in logic, the path to admittance of homosexuals and all the other infinite, multitudinous sexual perversions are just natural branches from the same root.

  5. It is so important that your words be heeded. The heretics tried mightily, but changed nothing! The heretics pranced on the world stage that’s for sure, and they are an embarrassment to Holy Mother Church BUT SHE STOOD FIRM. I’m rejoicing.

  6. Good article. When I read this synod summary, the paragraphs relating to divorced and civilly remarried refer the reader directly and explicitly to JP2`s “Familiaris Consortio” as something of a reference. And, remind me what that said about the issue of receiving the Sacrament after remarriage? (Hint: “However, the church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon sacred scripture, of not admitting to eucharistic communion divorced persons who have remarried. “) And as the matter of “Familiaris Consortio” is specifically raised and commended, I need to be shown where it tells us that any part of “Familiaris Consortio” is now obsolete. As far as I can work out, it doesn`t.

    • It doesn’t and it couldn’t.
      it doesn’t because it doesn’t.
      It couldn’t because, as FC clearly states, this is based on sacred scripture and as such part of the depositum fidei, and can never be changed. So even if Francis were to fart some document of sort hinting at this being changed the fart would be heretical, but the doctrine would not change.
      THIS is what must be said everywhere. THIS is what Catholics all over the world must hear. NOT panicked defeatism.

  7. We have to get over the idea that by not saying something at some instance, despite the fact that it has been repeated over and over through the life of the Church, then this somehow means that it is now repealed, abrogated etc. I think this is Mundabor`s point.

    Going forward from here, it is for the heretics to now show us where the teaching has been clearly overturned. If they cannot, then we need to tell them to just shut up.

    • But of course.
      The teaching of the Church stays. It’s there. it’s not that it has an automatic expiry if it not repeated everytime.
      What you say is exactly what we should do: it’s the heretics that must go back in the canalisation, not us who must start to cry “they are winning!”. They aren’t, by the way. Unless we help them any way we can.

  8. Thank you for your commentary during the Synod, Mundabor.

    Gloria TV has an exclusive interview with Cardinal Pell ( I quote below, and also provide the link)

    Yesterday, Cardinal George Pell commented on the final document of the Synod on the Family at the general assembly of the Una Voce Federation that was also taking place in Rome. Pell said, that the Synod was „very hard work“.

    The final document contained 94 paragraphs. Most of them were not controversial. The paragraphs 84, 85 and 86 had substantial minorities opposing them:

    84: 187 yes and 72 no.
    85: 178 yes and 80 no.
    86: 190 yes and 64 no.

    According to Pell a minority of bishops objected because they thought that the true teaching was not taught explicitly enough. He excused the Synod fathers with the argument that they – although they happen to be bishops – “have never done any or much Thomistic philosophy”.

    Pell saw a danger in the paragraph about conscience because people could use “conscience” and then “do what they want”. But the paragraph about conscience was rewritten in the last days: “You need to study it, but it is basically good.”

    According to Pell, the Synod did not focus at all on the three topics Communion for the divorced and remarried, on the idea of conscience or on the acceptance of homosexuality: “Catholic doctrine is stated clearly.”

    Pell admits that the language is “different” and verbose. It is not a document that he would have written: “Some people will say it is terrible, but it is not terrible.” For him the final version is almost a miracle if compared with the draft: “The Synod itself is much, much better than the worst we have feared.”

    “There is nothing there endorsing Communion for the divorced and remarried. There is nothing there endorsing a penitential process. There is nothing there that is saying homosexual activity is justified.”

    Pell does not know, how the text will be explained or spined. He is sure, that there will be attempts to “make something out of it.”

    He explains that according to the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, “there is no doctrinal error in anything that has been published”. (link is below)

    • Exactly.
      Not clear enough, not heretical or opening any door.
      The one with Thomism is clearly an excuse. They did not have the guts to defend Christ out loud, so they did it sottovoce.

  9. Cardinals Pell and Muller are doing just as you commend, may God Bless them.

  10. Today’s headline in our local newspaper: “The Church admits the divorced;… Allows those who have separated and married again to receive Communion; each case will be evaluated”

    • The more so we have the duty to state that it is not so.
      If even Catholics start to cry all around that the dams have broken, why would an I formed, stupid, biased secular or heretical publication not pick it up?

%d bloggers like this: