Isn’t it funny? After the first week of the Synod, the Vatican managed to put out a scandalous (heretical and immoral) mid-synod report, with translations in multiple languages. (A minor annoyance: What the heck does it mean to put a synod document on the Vatican website and then call it “unofficial”? This sort of reflexive irresponsibility is unbecoming of the Holy See.) Then, after the synod ends, a week and a half goes by with the final report only available in Italian. On October 29, The Remnant complains about how ridiculous this is. The next day, an English translation finally appears. (Don’t let the directory names fool you. I’ve been keeping an eye on this site, and I can tell you it wasn’t there when last I checked on the 28th.) Now, I don’t think the Kasperites running the Vatican website actually read The Remnant, but it’s not an unreasonable supposition that the final report was kept not-easily-available as long as this would draw attention away from it (and keep attention on the wicked mid-synod report), and a translation was only made available when it began to seem that its absence was actually drawing attention to the report.
Filed under: The Dark and Terrible Springtime of Vatican II |
Throne and Altar 
I rather think they do read “the remnant”
[…] Source: Throne and Altar […]
The mid-term Relatio was drafted and translated into multiple languages pretty stunningly quickly, though. And as has been pointed out elsewhere its composition bears a distinctly Bergoglian flavor. I can’t help but wonder if it was largely written in advance.
Agree with Jim. Sailer occasionally mentions that Cambridge, MA is one of the leading US locations of his readers. I can attest that, as of a few years ago at least, the social scientists thereabouts are curiously well-informed as to his views though none of them read the blog.
One disadvantage of repression is that it becomes easy to lose track of both the truth and of what crimethinkers are crimethinking. Crimethinker sites thus become useful.
“The…Relatio….written largely in advance.”
Isn’t there software that can make instant translations?
A general question here.
I frequently see the assertion that “the Pope can’t change doctrine” made by tradish Catholic commenters. It’s not real clear to me if they are typically referring to faith that papal infallibility won’t let the pope teach something heretical or if they typically mean that if the pope appears to be changing doctrine (through words or written documents), then we can ignore these teachings because we know he can’t change doctrine.
There’s a big difference. The former seems to be faith that it won’t happen. The latter seems to mean that we can exercise a degree of private judgement if it appears to happen.
Historically, has a pope ever exercised what appears to be infallibility in a way that contradicts the sacred deposit of the faith and been ignored in this teaching by the faithful?
Bruce,
It means the former. Specifically, as I understand it, it means that the conditions will never be right for the Pope to infallibly define, or the bishops generally to teach with consensus, that which is in error. (Note that “infallibly define” and “teach with consensus” have specific meanings. The Pope has an ordinary Magisterium which can err, and even the principled and fervent opposition of a small group of bishops can prevent infallibility from inhering to a particular teaching — as was the case during the height of the Arian heresy, when something like ~80% of bishops supported Arius).
Note, too, that none of the above protects us from Popes ignoring, downplaying, or failing to enforce (or enforce fully, or effectively) an infallibly defined doctrine, which is sort of what’s at stake with Francis and the Synod. They don’t have to change doctrine, they just have to change the reality in which we live the doctrine.
There has never been a single case of a Pope infallibly defining error, much less one which was subsequently ignored by the faithful. There were certainly cases of Popes teaching error in their ordinary Magisterium, i.e., John XXII and his teaching that the elect do not behold the Beatific Vision until the Resurrection, which were resisted aggressively.
Thank you, Proph.