Liberal Spinners & Bishop McElroy

 I’m not so sure why the liberal spinners are doing what they do. They won the battle. Why are they all still spinning so incredibly hard? It’s looking a little manic at this point.

Lamb, Ivereigh, Faggioli and the rest of the lapdogs are putting ridiculous things out there.  Examples? They’re still trying to deny that the Pachamama is Pachamama, even though the Pope and about 100 people from the Vatican have already admitted it to be so.

Next, they’re still trying to desperately convince us there’s this huge devotion (similar to Our Lady of Guadalupe) to “Our Lady of the Amazon”, because  Charles Lamb found a little chapel in South America with that title. He suggested you Google the title. I second that, because it gives you zip except what comes from them. Guys, the VATICAN has said it is not “Our Lady of Anything.”

They are even trying to say that nobody was bowing down to anything. I’m still scratching my head on this one. Again, the VATICAN put it out on video. Hello! Are they trying to insinuate everyone was down on their knees with head to the ground just looking for a contact? Smelling the flowers? Doubled over in pain?

The most ludicrous thing I’ve seen come across my screen is this tweet from Luke Hansen, SJ (with bonus video in the link!): https://twitter.com/lukehansensj/status/1188565636227747842?s=20

Luke Hansen

Uh, hello. To clarify, it was “the majority of the bishops” INVITED TO THE SYNOD. For those not paying attention, this wasn’t some open event. Attendees were carefully chosen to vote on something that the masterminds of this ridiculous synod wanted.  They wanted married priests and they wanted women deacons. When the majority you invite are your voting bloc, you are going to win the vote. Duh.

If you watch the video, Bp. McElroy says something we already knew: he’s not an expert on women in the diaconate.  Some of us would argue that he’s really only an expert on dissent, but whatever.  Let’s just look at this typical Bp. McElroy transcript from Youtube.

The core what the synod is about, I don’t see challenges to an authentic reception.

This reception idea is some knew reality the liberals are trying to float for a year or so. If it’s not received, it’s not really binding. If it is, it is.  It’s totally subjective.

Now I do think there will be peripheral issues of substance and some that are of caricature that will become a focus of debate around the synod but those are different questions. Those who were advocating for viri probati interventions specifically said we are in favor of celibacy and maintaining celibacy.

Um, sorry?! You cannot be both advocating against maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood and saying it should be maintained. Talk about double speak!

So they were bringing this forth not as a as a contrast with celibacy or as an alternative to celibacy they kept reiterating “This is an emergency situation for a faith communities that only get the Eucharist once a year.

They’ve created the “emergency situation” themselves by being such poor catechists that they’re not making converts, much less priests!  This, however, is what good liberals do. They create emergencies all of the stinking time so they can implement horrible measures to “save people.”

The key to me is what holds together the commitment to celibacy that was the consensus you know among the bishops and the wider body of the church.

Uh, no.  Can we stop this ridiculous lie that this somehow was representative of the Church at large? There is no “consensus” among bishops and cardinals around the world. Let’s all remember that Cardinal Kasper couldn’t wait to get rid of the Africans because they were an obstacle to his plans. So, if you don’t normally pay attention and something seems a little off about this synod, let me clarify: it was a complete and utter power play. Nobody went into this wondering what the outcome would be, barring a complete and utter miracle that would have had to include a lot of fire and brimstone to convert these guys.

On this question that’s that seems undiluted at the Synod it was not opened at all.

Pause. There were really two questions here. One small group asked, “How can we save the Church in the Amazon?”, but the overwhelming majority’s question was, “How can we use the Amazonian region to get what we want?” Let’s remember the infamous quote of Bishop Krautler that he has not baptized an indigenous person in 30 years.  And then there’s Bishop Mori, who lived in the forest with the indigenous people for a month but never taught them, because he needed their help to survive.  And our problem is that we don’t have married priests? Yeah, give me a break.

The sentiment among the bishops of the Synod (emphasis mine) was in favor of, the majority bishops were in favor the permanent, employment of women in the permanent diaconate. My own view is that I’m in favor of opening any ministry we have in the church to women which is not clearly precluded doctrinally so my own assessment of it is, and I’m not an expert in this field (Thanks for stating the obvious which is why we were wondering why you were there at all.) that what has come out so far indicates that the current diaconate for women is not clearly prohibited by doctrinal considerations so they, my hope would be that they would find a way a pathway to make that a reality and I think there’s a good possibility that’s the direction it’s gonna head. I, I don’t see, the Pope added his comments yesterday. The fact he did that makes me think there’s a good chance that some positive action will come out of that.

Honestly, how many more of these “Studies of Women in the Diaconate” are we going to have to endure? In 2002, their conclusion was that women were excluded: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/clarification-on-itc-study-on-the-diaconate-2276 2016? No consensus that this was allowed: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/women-diaconate  It has been done to death already!  I know, how about a synod on it where we only invite Sr. Mary Pantsuit and friends to attend and vote? Sigh. 

I would hope the discussion will be about the substance of the questions not about caricatures because if it’s about caricatures then we all lose it’s about the substance of the questions that that’s very legitimate and I think we should have that set of discussions.

I’m not sure Bishop McElroy would know what substance is. He’s an ideologue, a caricature himself.  Believe me, we all lose when he has a hand in it.

So, please, dear liberal spinners, you’re over selling. Just say you were able to run away with it and admit the truth. It’s been refreshing (yes, refreshing, but disgusting) seeing the prelates saying it like it is. “So what if it was a pagan rite?” “Yes, it is not Mary and is Pachamama!”   Follow the admission train and just admit it is what it is.  You’ll get a lot more sleep at night when you can be free from trying new ways to spin EVERYTHING.

I for one can quite peacefully say that this synod was the disaster many of us thought it would be. No surprise in the least. There is a positive take-away.  Everyone’s cards are on the table (well, except the poor lapdogs who know that’s not the best thing for them) and the slumbering are awake now – like they just had a bucket of ice-water dumped on their heads. Ice bucket challenge, anyone? We pick ourselves up off the battlefield, nurse our wounds, and live to fight another day. We know how the war ends so we can have peace.  Ivereigh, Lamb and Faggioli? They’ll just keep spinning until they crash. We’re just called to fight the battles of our age, win or lose. Discouragement and bailing are not an option. I will wake up tomorrow and do exactly what I did today. I’ll pray and hope that I get it right.

 

 

17 thoughts on “Liberal Spinners & Bishop McElroy

  1. Interesting that this bogus synod was not held in the Actual Amazon in Brazil. If it was Bergoglio and his pagan idol worshipping Pachamama Jokes for Cino Bishop’s henchmen would be confronted by devout Actual R. C. Brazilians and tbeir Conservative devout R.c. Gov.. They put in office there……. .. Bishop Strickland is correct when he stated that Bergoglios cino Vatican has the rump scarcely Rc. Cino church in the Amazon and in Red .China on the rd to a SCHISM ( And perdition)…

    Like

      1. He Bergoglio would face a FAR more hostile reception in his native Argentina than he received in Chile over Barros and others there…….. Read the Der Spiegel article or view the German Doc. Film on his B. F. Misconduct in Arg.. .Examples are. Abusive clergy and or bishops like Grassi, Pardo ,pulia ,Maccarone ,Sucunza. ,Zunchetta and Cocopalmeiro just in Arg. Alone . Sadly he Bf coddled AND igmored warnings about their sodomite deviancy. For DECADES. ……..Not to mention abuse for Decades at Buenos aires and Mendoza schl.. For deaf etc. Youth by Sodomite clergy while he B. F. Was in chatge..

        Like

        1. For the past 6 years, there’s been a persistent narrative that, as a dyed-in-the-wool Peronist, Pope Francis has stayed away from Argentina as a way of denying any sort of PR victory to the center-right government. The corollary of this hypothesis is that now that the center-left Peronists have just recaptured power, a 2020 papal visit to the homeland is fait accompli. We’ll see.

          Like

  2. OMM, you’re 100% right about the slumbering waking it. Was talking to a friend yesterday… a Catholic who hasn’t been to mass in years and is married to a lapsed protestant, yet maintains a Catholic mindset and is generally supportive of Church teaching. This friend was asking me, “What the (heck) is going on with this Pope Francis and Amazonian idols and synods and all this crazy talk about Jesus not being God? What is he trying to do? Destroy the Catholic Church?” Now, again, this is coming not from some kind Rad-Trad but from a barely affiliated Catholic who maintains an, ahem, healthy distance from intra-church politics. When even folks like that are sitting up and taking notice of Pope Francis and what’s going on, well, as Dorothy said, “We ain’t in Kansas anymore, Toto”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yup! God can even use the actions of the foolhardy to His advantage. It’s just not sitting well with people. I mean, how many years have we been trying to explain that Catholics don’t worship idols and some idiots decided to allow people to do it!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. So true. Was out on a walk over the weekend and was thinking about the current plight of the Church and remembering long-ago debates with evangelical protestants and other non-Catholics when I took the position of defending the Catholic Church. Remembered so many of their accusations: “you Catholics worship statues, you Catholics don’t follow Jesus, you Catholics blindly accept whatever the pope says or does matter how illogical/unbiblical/stupid/whatever, you Catholics just put a nominally Christian veneer on top of what is essentially paganism,” etc, . And I remember how I had patiently tried to explain to those critics about how wrong they were about everything. But now we’ve entered into some kind of Twilight Zone in which the leadership of the Church is doing its darnedest to live down to every ridiculous, unfair criticism ever leveled against it.

        Like

  3. Am so tired of these people and the Pope trashing the Church to make it modern. If they want women deacons please join the Episcopalian Church where “all are welcome”. This bowing before idols reinforces the Protestant idea that we bow before Mary and worship her. And exactly how do we explain the Amazonians, a Franciscan friar led by a shaman bowing before the statues. How do we explain our Churches are sacred with Jrsus present in the Tabernacle with the Amazonian display in a Church dedicated to Our Lady no less and
    one of these statues is in front of it with candles around it? What about the obscene picture of the woman nursing an animal? That church needs to be exorcised and rededicated. While we’re at it the Vatican garden needs also to be exorcised and that tree burned. Now, I don’t know about Pope Francis except to reinforce that he’s talking doublespeak along with the others, the Magestrium goes before the Pope, and the Synod isn’t dogma,and as far as I’m concerned they need to crawl back into their rabbit holes. A better idea would be to leave them in the Amazon jungle with the mosquitoes feasting on them and they can worship Mother Earth there.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Before Christ comes again- He will endure the “passion and crucifixion” of His Mystical Body which is The Church.
    There will be a new John the Baptist – The False Prophet- who will pave the way for the Anti-Christ – you can guess who the false prophet might be.
    Let’s look at a few parallels:
    The evil ceremony was held in the Vatican garden and a tree was planted – like the garden of eden and the garden of Getsemany?
    Our Lady of Guadalupe (who converted millions in the Americas near the Amazon) was not invited to this sin nod – Mary, who crushes the serpent’s head, was REPLACED by a nude woman who is sometimes depicted with snakes around her…the new mother who embraces and “co-exists” with the serpent – maybe she is carrying The Anti-Christ in her red belly? Hmmm.
    There are many other signs but let’s get to the bottom line.
    What is the end goal here?
    The Anti-Christ wants worship.
    It wants to sit in the throne of Peter.
    It wants to be invited to do so.
    It will claim to be Jesus – returning in the flesh.
    It can not do so if the Living Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus is in the same temple.
    It needs to remove the Eucharist- the daily sacrifice as the book of Daniel says.
    We are witnessing the abomination of desolation- the “reverse cleansing “ of the temple by the false prophet so he can hand over the throne to the Anti-Christ.
    Doesn’t sound so absurd now – does it?

    Like

  5. If you want to get a very good understanding of what is going on and why I suggest you read Bishop Schneider’s new book Christus Vincit. It is really good and he explains the history and current conditions very well and has helped me a lot – highly recommend it.

    Like

  6. There is no comparison between a married clergy and women deacons. A married clergy is Biblical. Women deacons are not Biblical. There is no mandatory celibacy required in the New Testament for the clergy. ‘Husband of one wife’ is still there. See Titus 1:5-6 for elders (presbyteros), 1Timothy 3:2 for bishops, and 3:12 for deacons. This is reason enough to allow for a male married clergy without needing any further explanations or rationalizations to the contrary.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s