COMMENTARY: The Dutch cardinal says the report undermines the Church’s moral doctrine, with consequences that extend far beyond questions of sexuality to the protection of human life itself.
SG9 is further proof, if it were needed, that the synodal process as defined, cannot produce good fruit. It should be abandoned for the sake of the Church.
The prime movers trying to normalize homosexuality are the active homosexuals infecting and controlling the Church hierarchy all the way to very top. They are acting with an arrogance unmatched in Church history. They must be defeated by those who love the Faith.
Dr. Gavin Ashenden has contributed an excellent critique of the document available at his Substack and on YouTube. Its genius is that it does not merely target the topic handled in the report from Synod Group #9 -- but it dissects the reasoning underpinning its heretical and illogical methodology. In doing so Dr. Ashenden dismantles much of the chaos of the last sixty years. Everyone who cares should dive into his presentation -- including the global episcopate -- not excluding Rome itself.
We have a problem across generations...time to clean up the mess we've confected for ourselves.
We have a major problem with Rome. The apostacy that entered the church in the 60's has spread to the entire church, including church leadership. This must be stopped and rejected by the faithful. Christ is the head of the church snf must be obeyed.
Um, rejecting the hierarchy of the Church and its teachings is our job , again? I can think of about 135 people the Cardinal should be haranguing, and another in white.
Excellent defense of Catholic doctrine. This is the type of refutation that Pope Leo should have published. We need more clear thinkers such as Cardinal Eijk in the Church today!
Synod Study group 9 or Sodomy propaganda’s gang inside the Church is the face of today’s Schism. They came out public . Let’s see what happens. I don’t expect Cardinal Tucho to do any rejection, not even a comment. He prefers excommunications for SSPX. Besides, he’s so vulgar… Cardinal Eijk is the kind of shepherd we need. A new Ratzinger.
The so-called “Cardinal” Eijk is correct on one point: Catholic morality cannot be reduced to an endless synodal process shaped by lived experience and pastoral ambiguity. But the crisis cuts deeper than moral confusion alone. Once men who publicly undermine settled doctrine are still treated as unquestionable authorities, while others resist them selectively yet continue presuming the structure itself remains juridically intact, the unresolved question becomes unavoidable: by what demonstrable apostolic mission do these men govern or teach in the Church’s name at all?
That is why groups like the SSPX can identify doctrinal collapse for decades yet hesitate to follow the implications to their conclusion. The problem is no longer merely distinguishing true doctrine from false doctrine, but distinguishing true authority from those who only appear to possess it.
No — simply because the title itself is part of the disputed question. A man is not a cardinal merely because media, hierarchy, or common usage says so. Catholic theology traditionally tied offices to lawful mission and public authority, not merely recognition or appearance.
As for the article itself, whether he wrote it personally is secondary to the point being made. Even clear observations do not resolve the deeper constitutional problem underneath them.
That only restates the disputed premise. The question is not whether a claimant was “appointed,” but whether the man claiming the papacy possessed lawful authority to appoint anyone in the first place.
Otherwise every jurisdictional dispute in Church history could be solved merely by appealing to recognition after the fact — which is precisely what Catholic theology never allowed.
"Otherwise every jurisdictional dispute in Church history could be solved merely by appealing to recognition after the fact — which is precisely what Catholic theology never allowed."
Never? Vigilius after Silverius? Eugene after Martin? There are nothing more than "recognition after the fact."
Those cases actually reinforce the distinction, Will. Recognition after the fact can settle a disputed claimant within an already acknowledged constitutional structure; it cannot create lawful authority out of nothing or bypass the principles by which authority is transmitted in the first place.
The issue here is deeper, Will: if the underlying source of appointment itself is disputed, then merely pointing to later recognition just circles back to the same unresolved premise.
Wonderful to hear these clear and unambiguous words by Cardinal Eijk. Such a relief to hear him saying that a number of bishops and Cardinals will make their voices heard to the Roman Magisterium.
Praying for all the good and faithful bishops and Cardinals.
Thank you for that lucid and fair commentary. This report must be rejected at the highest level.
SG9 is further proof, if it were needed, that the synodal process as defined, cannot produce good fruit. It should be abandoned for the sake of the Church.
The prime movers trying to normalize homosexuality are the active homosexuals infecting and controlling the Church hierarchy all the way to very top. They are acting with an arrogance unmatched in Church history. They must be defeated by those who love the Faith.
Dr. Gavin Ashenden has contributed an excellent critique of the document available at his Substack and on YouTube. Its genius is that it does not merely target the topic handled in the report from Synod Group #9 -- but it dissects the reasoning underpinning its heretical and illogical methodology. In doing so Dr. Ashenden dismantles much of the chaos of the last sixty years. Everyone who cares should dive into his presentation -- including the global episcopate -- not excluding Rome itself.
We have a problem across generations...time to clean up the mess we've confected for ourselves.
Souls are being lost.
We have a major problem with Rome. The apostacy that entered the church in the 60's has spread to the entire church, including church leadership. This must be stopped and rejected by the faithful. Christ is the head of the church snf must be obeyed.
Um, rejecting the hierarchy of the Church and its teachings is our job , again? I can think of about 135 people the Cardinal should be haranguing, and another in white.
Excellent defense of Catholic doctrine. This is the type of refutation that Pope Leo should have published. We need more clear thinkers such as Cardinal Eijk in the Church today!
Thank you for your great work.
Synod Study group 9 or Sodomy propaganda’s gang inside the Church is the face of today’s Schism. They came out public . Let’s see what happens. I don’t expect Cardinal Tucho to do any rejection, not even a comment. He prefers excommunications for SSPX. Besides, he’s so vulgar… Cardinal Eijk is the kind of shepherd we need. A new Ratzinger.
very good, a wonderful testimony to the Beloved....
The so-called “Cardinal” Eijk is correct on one point: Catholic morality cannot be reduced to an endless synodal process shaped by lived experience and pastoral ambiguity. But the crisis cuts deeper than moral confusion alone. Once men who publicly undermine settled doctrine are still treated as unquestionable authorities, while others resist them selectively yet continue presuming the structure itself remains juridically intact, the unresolved question becomes unavoidable: by what demonstrable apostolic mission do these men govern or teach in the Church’s name at all?
That is why groups like the SSPX can identify doctrinal collapse for decades yet hesitate to follow the implications to their conclusion. The problem is no longer merely distinguishing true doctrine from false doctrine, but distinguishing true authority from those who only appear to possess it.
Why call him "The so-called “Cardinal” Eijk?" Do you think that the article has been ghost-written for him?
No — simply because the title itself is part of the disputed question. A man is not a cardinal merely because media, hierarchy, or common usage says so. Catholic theology traditionally tied offices to lawful mission and public authority, not merely recognition or appearance.
As for the article itself, whether he wrote it personally is secondary to the point being made. Even clear observations do not resolve the deeper constitutional problem underneath them.
"A man is not a cardinal merely because media, hierarchy, or common usage says so."
A man is a cardinal because the Pope appoints him such. No more and no less - and a Pope did so appoint him. Only a sedevacantist could disagree.
That only restates the disputed premise. The question is not whether a claimant was “appointed,” but whether the man claiming the papacy possessed lawful authority to appoint anyone in the first place.
Otherwise every jurisdictional dispute in Church history could be solved merely by appealing to recognition after the fact — which is precisely what Catholic theology never allowed.
"Otherwise every jurisdictional dispute in Church history could be solved merely by appealing to recognition after the fact — which is precisely what Catholic theology never allowed."
Never? Vigilius after Silverius? Eugene after Martin? There are nothing more than "recognition after the fact."
Those cases actually reinforce the distinction, Will. Recognition after the fact can settle a disputed claimant within an already acknowledged constitutional structure; it cannot create lawful authority out of nothing or bypass the principles by which authority is transmitted in the first place.
The issue here is deeper, Will: if the underlying source of appointment itself is disputed, then merely pointing to later recognition just circles back to the same unresolved premise.
Wonderful to hear these clear and unambiguous words by Cardinal Eijk. Such a relief to hear him saying that a number of bishops and Cardinals will make their voices heard to the Roman Magisterium.
Praying for all the good and faithful bishops and Cardinals.