Marian Errors

In section 27 of the Synod Against the Family (h/t Ann Barnhardt for coining that), almost immediately there is near blasphemy.  “Near”, simply because we are so far from basic catechesis that people are not aghast at reading it.  Without the comprehension of a problem, we further remove ourselves from it.  There was a time when such statements would have Saints clamouring to defend the honour of the Mother of God, while demanding correction for obvious mistakes.  In ages past people knew and loved their Mother.  Would they have allowed such a statement?  Would they have noticed it?  Has anyone else?  So far I have seen nothing on this.  A layman with these ideas would have be corrected.  How much worse from men professing to hold the faith?  The  very ones teaching, protecting and promulgating it need stern condemnation.  They should be the ones that know better.

The mother guards the memory and the feelings of birth for a lifetime: “But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Lk 2,19.51).

There are errors here.  The most basic scriptural error is having the verse refer to memories, and specifically to birthing Christ.  Mary is absolutely not reflecting on birthing Christ and holding it in her heart, going over and over it again silently.  The second verse here should not be included: this verse is not just out of context within the Nativity scene, but entirely out of context biblically.  We will begin with the context of Luke 2:51.

[41] And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch, [42] And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast, [43] And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not. [44] And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day’ s journey, and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance. [45] And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him. [46] And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. [47] And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. [48] And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. [49] And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father’ s business? [50] And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them [51] And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. [52] And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men.

This scene is no where near the Nativity.  Christ is twelve years old.  His birth is not involved in what she is thinking about or pondering or feeling.  In fact the surrounding context makes it clear she is specifically meditating silently and obediently, contemplating what Christ said to her.  When Mary kept all the words of Christ in her heart when he was twelve, it is specifically the words Christ spoke, at that time.  The same phrase is used in 2:19.  This does not mean it is the same object of wonderment or focus.

[16] And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. [17] And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child. [18] And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds. [19] But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. [20] And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God, for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

Here, Mary is being spoken to by those who are glorying the newborn Christ, and everything that had been said (just previously an Angel had spoken with the shepherds) about Him.  She is absorbing what they are saying, holding the words close to her.  She mulled over them, reflected interiorly on the proclamations.  In silence and obedience, she accepts and considers all that was.  There was no speaking out, questioning, or refutations.  It was simple, quiet, graceful compliance with God’s will.  Absolutely no where does this directly or indirectly refer to her thinking, or stewing upon, Christ’s birth.  There is not even an abstract hint of such a thing.  To make any of this work, the Synod writers had to change “words” to “things”, and even within context “things” still reads as “what Mary is being told”.  It is not a difference between scripture versions either.  It is quite clear in differing translations that thinking about Christ’s birth was not the focus of Mary’s ponderings; not in the Nativity, not in the Temple when he was twelve.

That alone should be enough for a humble, shamefaced retraction by those in the Vatican.  Apparently learned men do not know the difference between listening to words about a child, listening to words from a child (over a decade apart), and giving birth.  Is it possible men who claim to be theologians, educators, leaders, lawyers, could not comprehend the difference?  Was this a purposeful pass under the radar in hopes that people would absorb without consideration?  This is a dangerous line of reasoning, as if it is so, the purpose would be to diminish Mary within the Church.  As her seed will crush the head of the serpent, disparaging Mary can only help the devil.

By using verses out of context, the document gives the impression that Mary experienced childbirth as any woman would.  That she is no different from the fallen daughters of Eve.  This is a sneaky downplaying of Mary to that of common woman, on par with the rest of us.  Experiencing life, feelings and thoughts, on par with the sinners.  Mary is full of grace, she did not experience birth the way the rest of us do.  The inference attempted here is to put Mary on equal footing with the rest of womankind.  “The mother guards memory and feeling”.  She is a generic representation of all women, all memories of birth, all feeling.  We are actually, really, just like her.  

This is the blasphemy.  Equating all mothers, and the experience of Motherhood, with Maryhood.  Using out-of-context quotes about Mary to defend their statement about mothers in general.  As doctrine stands, Mary birthed Christ as women were supposed to before the fall:

Genesis 3:[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children

After the fall, God tells Eve that becoming a mother will be sorrowful, painful, a trial.  Before the fall it is accepted that this was not the case.  Mary was without the stain of original sin, therefore she was free of the punishments of Eve.  Mary did not experience giving birth as the rest of us, and likely had nothing to think about in relation to it.  While women do go over labour hours, how much pushing, the pain, the methods, in the end it is all about the baby and the rest is unimportant.  What did Mary have to consider in her labour?  It would have been nothing, she would have been entirely focused on the Christ-child.  Not a non-event of the non-struggles of birth.

This is a lowering of Mary, to remove the supernatural from the faith.  It is the next move in the “the multiplication of loaves was really a story about sharing”.  Mary didn’t “really” have a supernatural birthing of Christ, as spoken of by God in Genesis.  She gave birth just as every other woman does.  And this is blasphemy.

Sin-od Over

The focus of this drama, has been marriage.  Apparently this entire event is on “The Family”, and ways we can change “The Family”.  The appearance of it has been on how to accept everything in the secular world.  The secular world opposes Christ, scripture and His doctrines through Holy Mother Church.  In reality, “The Synod on the Family” would be more accurately rendered “The Synod on Everything Except The Family”.  We have the full spectrum of input from special interest groups, Catholics, atheists, the media, cardinals; they all desire a discussion on gay “marital” union, and divorce.  The very fact we can even have an evident discussion by prelates purportedly representing God Himself proves the failure of the Modernist Church.  No synod was needed, no discussion giving legitimacy to even the bare idea of such heresies and vulgarities. 

On the indissolubility of marriage: Mark 10:8-12, Matthew 19:9, Luke 16:18 (all variances on the same verse), 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11.  [I will add all verses presume the natural law of man and woman marrying, as the purpose is of a sexual nature, thus for the production of offspring; further, Genesis 1:28, 3:16 (the last here is a “proofs in the pudding”, kind of proof).]

If the Church truly cared about her sheep and was a loving Shepherd, that is all we would have needed.  No contrivances, no mental games.  Instead we are handed two years of garbled doublespeak, permission of sin in the disguise of “mercy” (ignoring Catholic teaching: true mercy is to prevent, or the aid in turning way from, sin), and all sides at the end declaring victory over a muddy, bloody, ruined battlefield where each side has salted the earth.  Everyone with a keyboard has said something, every blog and writer (I hesitate to utilize the word journalist) has already commented on all these events.  Some have the documents up in English already.

The one no one has spoken of, except in passing in a “women priests” moment before being dropped, is the section on “Women”.  Here is the pertinent translation:

27. The woman has a crucial role in the life of the person, the family and society. “Each human person owes his or her life to a mother, and almost always owes her much of his or her very existence, and his or her human and spiritual formation,” (Francis, General Audience, January 7, 2015). The mother guards the memory and the feelings of birth for a lifetime: “But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Lk 2,19.51). It remains true, however, that the status of women in the world is subject to large differences arising primarily from socio-cultural factors. The dignity of women needs to be defended and promoted. It is not simply a problem of resources, but of a different cultural perspective, as highlighted by the plight of women in many emerging countries. In many contexts, still, being a woman provokes discrimination: The gift of motherhood is penalized rather than valued. On the other hand, a woman’s sterility, in some cultures, is a condition that leads to social discrimination.  We shouldn’t forget the growing phenomena of violence in which women are victims within the family. The exploitation of women and violence to their bodies are often linked to abortion and forced sterilization. Added to this is the negative consequences of practices related to procreation, such as surrogacy, or the commercialization of gametes and embryos. The emancipation of women requires a rethinking of the tasks of spouses in their reciprocity and a shared responsibility in family life. The desire for a child at any cost has not resulted in happier or stronger family relations, but in many cases has actually exacerbated the inequality between women and men. A greater appreciation of their responsibilities within the Church can contribute to the social recognition of the role of women: their involvement in decision-making, their participation in the government of some institutions, and their involvement in the formation of ordained ministers.

Section 27 was adopted by a vote of 251 to 9.

This is likely the most important part of the entire Synod.  Without this, and the gradual climb towards this, no other part of the Synod would even be possible.  It will be the most ignored and under rated part of the document.  It will go with a few snide remarks, or praise, depending on how much you love or hate the Faith, respectively.  However, this is why we are in this situation.  The destruction of the family, the allowance of any form of genital union being deemed “marriage”, to the point where the Catholic Church ostensibly had to give it enough credibility to discuss whether it is a sacramental marriage or not, the very idea of divorce whatsoever, the ease of annulments, the allowance of mortal sinners to communion: it all starts here.  The entire failure of society begins with our trashing and denigrating of women.

I will be dissecting this paragraph.  It shocks me that a base female layperson can see the glaring scriptural theological error within the first few lines, and yet it is delivered by men who are supposed to be learned in the Faith.  For shame.

Sin-od of Marxism

So the word is out! Apparently the church is saved! Yaaaaay.

Or not.

The very fact any of these things were even spoken about proves how far the church has fallen. This is three steps forward two steps back. Pushing as hard as they can, then “reeling” themselves back in to “be conservative”. It’s a typical, well practised Marxist ploy. Every time, they gain a little ground, and the masses follow.

As for the person chittering about annulments not being Catholic divorce. (These are all USA numbers, not global). Yes, when 338 were given out in 1968, those were annulments, very hard to get. Annulment means the marriage never sacramentally existed, it never happened. Seeing as it is very easy to have a sacramental marriage and almost impossible in church law to have an invalid marriage, the number SHOULD be low. In 1974 it jumped to 28,000. That’s a difference of two things: only 8 -eight- years and Vatican II. Suddenly over 27,000 people could seek civil divorce, saying they were not really “church married”. 

This is clearly allowing for divorce.

In 2012 there were 24,010 cases. (1990s had been 2-3x this number, depending on year).

Following trends, as we are wont to do, by making it easier to get an annulment, there will be a massive spike in “annulments”. Ignoring obviously that Christ said no man can pull apart what God has put together.

When we say Catholic divorce, this is what we are saying. People who go get their divorce paperwork done, by the 10s of thousands, and then submit it to the Church, to have it rubber stamped. They are facilitating divorce, even if you want to call it annulment.

An annulment, again, means the marriage NEVER existed. This only happens if you were forced into the marriage, or one of the parties didn’t intend to be married (extremely hard to prove – claims of it after he finds a new love toy, that he never meant it, notwithstanding), or a prenup. 

If you are prepared enough that you got a dress, tux, caterers, rented a hall or reception area, sent out invitations, got a priest, did a rehearsal, went shoe shopping, got makeup and hair done, then walked willingly down the aisle and said the vows: you are married. You are married no matter how many civil divorces you have and you are married no matter how much you think you hate each other.

That is scripture, that is church law, and those are Christ’s words.