Even I have been talked into the rosary (by having it pointed out to me that if I have a natural aversion to it, this is only to my benefit and I ought even to say thanks for that. It is an upside-down way to look at it, but I found the logic unassailable.)
I listen to it on CD lots, and sleep with it on so if I wake up in the middle of the night due to breathing problems I can pray until I go back to sleep again. I listen to Father Groeschel and Simonetta, but there are many different versions one can set to permanent repeat. Plus praying it with friends after Mass.
> Vatican communications prefect Paolo Ruffini told reporters Thursday that the assembly is a “synod of bishops,” at which a minority of participants — a little less than 25% percent — are non-bishops.
I feel like I'm reading the bit in Murder Must Advertise where they discuss the difference between "made from", "made of", and "only", and the brother in law makes a note for how to do the shopping going forward.
I've heard that this synod is just for a listening church and will not change any Catholic doctrine so what difference would it make if or who votes? But then I hear about votes and decisions and I wonder what those decisions could be and why?
Sensus fidelium...the idea is a beautiful one. But when a majority of the laity appointed seem to be of a "reformist" bent can we call what is happening a true consultation or expression of senses fidelium?
And this Synod is not a synod of bishops, it is something else altogether.
In a limited way doesn't the sensus fidelium usually apply when a Council is held to the "reception" of the documents or teaching that comes from a Council by the faithful?
At the Council of Florence the churches compromised on a number of issues, allowing each to do its own thing and reuniting the Church, but the Orthodox never accepted the result although only one of their bishops refused to accept it because of the pressure of the emperor. The promised military aid from the West never materialized and Constantinople fell shortly thereafter.
Every week I proclaim that I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If a Synodal Church isn’t these things I am not interested in it and don’t feel bound by it. Frankly, I know Austen Ivereigh isn’t voting, but I don’t want him even in the room when it happens. He can get lost and look at his Rupnik dirty pictures.
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council gave a great gift to the Church in identifying and affirming the roles and responsibilities of the Christian faithful.
The role proper to the bishops (so we've been told) is to "teach, sanctify, and govern."
The role proper to the laity (so we've been told) is to "sanctify the temporal."
This was authoritatively interpeted by Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. And since the latter half of the pontificate of Saint John Paul II, the Church had been starting to find its sea legs and flourishing with that understanding.
Now, the current pontificate has completely upended the teachings of the Council Fathers by calling into question the roles of every Christian, how they relate to the Church and to the world, and blurring the lines between the responsibilities and roles each proper to laity, religious, deacons, priests, and bishops. Laity can do what bishops are meant to do, priests can do what laity are meant to do, religious can do anything except what religious are supposed to do, etc. It's a mess.
The problem appears to be that this pontificate wants to do away with clericalism by making everyone take on as many of the duties of clerics as possible. Personally, I am happy not to be one and don't appreciate the clergy trying to remake me as a mini cleric.
I am grateful women have a vote. Since ordination is closed to women, a vote from the laity is the only arrangement that can assure a true women’s vote
What I am thinking is that women could be a very useful scapegoat. Every part of the document will be vexing to some set of people, and because women have a vote, each of those sets of people can either say "if only those women had not been there, this part would have been written in a more conservative way, because women are liberal and have bad ideas" or "if only those women had not been there, this part would have been written in a less conservative way, because bishops are liberal and have good ideas", depending on the preferences of that set of people. Each set of people can then have as many mental reservations about the document as there are vexing paragraphs in the document, while simultaneously asking that everyone else accept the remainder of the document as the soft and gentle whisper of the Holy Spirit, our friend, advocate, sanctifier, living flame of love (because maybe the women were outvoted on that point). We should be grateful that our sex has the opportunity to serve the church in humility in this way.
I just think it would be extremely beneficial to have women at decision making positions. This does not mean I am asking for rad fem changes. It means that I believe that men and women can take different approaches to problems. Everyone knows that a boys' high school and a girls' high school are different, even if they are both practicing an orthodox Catholicism. Right now the Church decision making is boys' school only.
A very good point. I am reminded of GK Chesterton's description of tradition being the democracy of the dead, whereby we take account of the opinions of the good people who came before us.
That, AND this assembly is at best "representative" of 1-2% even of the living baptized who are at all engaged with a parish. Its claims to universality are farcical.
Truly. I complained about the Novus Ordo no longer being in standard English and asked that it be retranslated into English instead of Latglish. Not another word was ever heard on the subject.
"But while the Vatican’s meeting is formally a “synod of bishops,” the approval process will not tally which votes came from bishops, and which came from priests, religious, and other lay participants. "
It seems to me that this is a way for Bishops to shirk responsibility.
The duty to govern the Church has been given to them, as well as the authority necessary to carry out that duty. This responsibility and authority was not given to the "community of the baptized." Much less when the "People of God" really means a bunch of secular pressure groups who are trying to instrumentalize the Church for their stupid political factions.
The true "People of God" are the people who are or should be served by and instructed by this authority, not to bear the responsibilities of Bishops themselves.
Studying history helps us calm down (or at least narrow what we have to worry about). The Church's history is full of non-ecumenical synods, councils, meetings, decisions, etc., that were dumb, stupid, heterodox, etc. Is this an ecumenical council? No. Will it be an exercise of the ordinary magisterium? No. It's a meeting of some Catholics who might say some things. That's what it is.
There are generally two risks:
(1) When (not if) it says/does something stupid, it misleads many of the faithful. But it won't be the first time that's happened in history, so trust the Holy Spirit.
(2) The Pope uses it as a pretext to say or do some dumb things (either in terms of praxis or doctrine). Provided he doesn't do so ex cathedra, it also won't be the first time that's happened in history, so trust the Holy Spirit.
It was always, ALWAYS going to be the case that when the Generation of '69 became Cardinals and Popes that things would get really ridiculous. Let's all just pray and be patient.
I guess a new Pope or Bishops in charge or whomever can someday say, “oh, shucks, this document is invalid,” right? Like that committee about birth control before St Paul VI promulgated “Humanae Vitae”.
In the end, as a woman, it is a wonder to me that it’s thought that women don’t have power/ don’t have a say in the church. The real power as a woman is relational it seems to me. All sorts of women have influenced the church, seen and unseen. The closer we follow Mother Mary and say, “do whatever He tells you,” … that’s power!! That’s biological and spiritual motherhood. That’s the power crux.
God permits everything. He does not desire everything. Nor does He desire everything that happens in the Church. The leaders of the Church have incorrectly claimed God's assistance or approval when later events or basic theology have made it clear that God neither coils nor did approve.
Asking whether our leaders are gaslighting us about God's hand in this is not an anti-Catholic question. This is new, so it has to be analyzed as something new and tested. It cannot be accepted uncritically.
It appears the core issue is governance. Governance wields power and control. They appear to be the backbone of what we now experience. Theron lies the fear that seems to dominate.Jesus was about neither.
Unless God intervenes with another disaster like covid19 after Pachamama. Would the Hamas-Israeli war qualify as a warning?
So do I. Our Lady said the rosary and the 5 First Fridays are the only solution and so few people seem to be doing what she asked.
Awesome.
Even I have been talked into the rosary (by having it pointed out to me that if I have a natural aversion to it, this is only to my benefit and I ought even to say thanks for that. It is an upside-down way to look at it, but I found the logic unassailable.)
I listen to it on CD lots, and sleep with it on so if I wake up in the middle of the night due to breathing problems I can pray until I go back to sleep again. I listen to Father Groeschel and Simonetta, but there are many different versions one can set to permanent repeat. Plus praying it with friends after Mass.
> Vatican communications prefect Paolo Ruffini told reporters Thursday that the assembly is a “synod of bishops,” at which a minority of participants — a little less than 25% percent — are non-bishops.
I feel like I'm reading the bit in Murder Must Advertise where they discuss the difference between "made from", "made of", and "only", and the brother in law makes a note for how to do the shopping going forward.
I've heard that this synod is just for a listening church and will not change any Catholic doctrine so what difference would it make if or who votes? But then I hear about votes and decisions and I wonder what those decisions could be and why?
Sensus fidelium...the idea is a beautiful one. But when a majority of the laity appointed seem to be of a "reformist" bent can we call what is happening a true consultation or expression of senses fidelium?
And this Synod is not a synod of bishops, it is something else altogether.
In a limited way doesn't the sensus fidelium usually apply when a Council is held to the "reception" of the documents or teaching that comes from a Council by the faithful?
Weren't the lay participants specifically selected for their leftist affiliations?
At the Council of Florence the churches compromised on a number of issues, allowing each to do its own thing and reuniting the Church, but the Orthodox never accepted the result although only one of their bishops refused to accept it because of the pressure of the emperor. The promised military aid from the West never materialized and Constantinople fell shortly thereafter.
Yes, yes it matters very much.
Every week I proclaim that I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If a Synodal Church isn’t these things I am not interested in it and don’t feel bound by it. Frankly, I know Austen Ivereigh isn’t voting, but I don’t want him even in the room when it happens. He can get lost and look at his Rupnik dirty pictures.
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council gave a great gift to the Church in identifying and affirming the roles and responsibilities of the Christian faithful.
The role proper to the bishops (so we've been told) is to "teach, sanctify, and govern."
The role proper to the laity (so we've been told) is to "sanctify the temporal."
This was authoritatively interpeted by Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. And since the latter half of the pontificate of Saint John Paul II, the Church had been starting to find its sea legs and flourishing with that understanding.
Now, the current pontificate has completely upended the teachings of the Council Fathers by calling into question the roles of every Christian, how they relate to the Church and to the world, and blurring the lines between the responsibilities and roles each proper to laity, religious, deacons, priests, and bishops. Laity can do what bishops are meant to do, priests can do what laity are meant to do, religious can do anything except what religious are supposed to do, etc. It's a mess.
The problem appears to be that this pontificate wants to do away with clericalism by making everyone take on as many of the duties of clerics as possible. Personally, I am happy not to be one and don't appreciate the clergy trying to remake me as a mini cleric.
I am grateful women have a vote. Since ordination is closed to women, a vote from the laity is the only arrangement that can assure a true women’s vote
What I am thinking is that women could be a very useful scapegoat. Every part of the document will be vexing to some set of people, and because women have a vote, each of those sets of people can either say "if only those women had not been there, this part would have been written in a more conservative way, because women are liberal and have bad ideas" or "if only those women had not been there, this part would have been written in a less conservative way, because bishops are liberal and have good ideas", depending on the preferences of that set of people. Each set of people can then have as many mental reservations about the document as there are vexing paragraphs in the document, while simultaneously asking that everyone else accept the remainder of the document as the soft and gentle whisper of the Holy Spirit, our friend, advocate, sanctifier, living flame of love (because maybe the women were outvoted on that point). We should be grateful that our sex has the opportunity to serve the church in humility in this way.
I really prefer not to serve the Church as a scapegoat.
Out of interest, what problems facing women in the Church do you think can be alleviated by voting?
I just think it would be extremely beneficial to have women at decision making positions. This does not mean I am asking for rad fem changes. It means that I believe that men and women can take different approaches to problems. Everyone knows that a boys' high school and a girls' high school are different, even if they are both practicing an orthodox Catholicism. Right now the Church decision making is boys' school only.
Misogynistic men who have tried diligently to lord it over women, the workers in the church for ages
Given the nature of participation, perhaps "Rump Caucus of the People of God Currently Living in Earth" would be more suitable.
A very good point. I am reminded of GK Chesterton's description of tradition being the democracy of the dead, whereby we take account of the opinions of the good people who came before us.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/5299610-tradition-is-only-democracy-extended-through-time-it-is-trusting#:~:text=Tradition%20means%20giving%20votes%20to,happen%20to%20be%20walking%20about.
That, AND this assembly is at best "representative" of 1-2% even of the living baptized who are at all engaged with a parish. Its claims to universality are farcical.
Truly. I complained about the Novus Ordo no longer being in standard English and asked that it be retranslated into English instead of Latglish. Not another word was ever heard on the subject.
"But while the Vatican’s meeting is formally a “synod of bishops,” the approval process will not tally which votes came from bishops, and which came from priests, religious, and other lay participants. "
It seems to me that this is a way for Bishops to shirk responsibility.
The duty to govern the Church has been given to them, as well as the authority necessary to carry out that duty. This responsibility and authority was not given to the "community of the baptized." Much less when the "People of God" really means a bunch of secular pressure groups who are trying to instrumentalize the Church for their stupid political factions.
The true "People of God" are the people who are or should be served by and instructed by this authority, not to bear the responsibilities of Bishops themselves.
Studying history helps us calm down (or at least narrow what we have to worry about). The Church's history is full of non-ecumenical synods, councils, meetings, decisions, etc., that were dumb, stupid, heterodox, etc. Is this an ecumenical council? No. Will it be an exercise of the ordinary magisterium? No. It's a meeting of some Catholics who might say some things. That's what it is.
There are generally two risks:
(1) When (not if) it says/does something stupid, it misleads many of the faithful. But it won't be the first time that's happened in history, so trust the Holy Spirit.
(2) The Pope uses it as a pretext to say or do some dumb things (either in terms of praxis or doctrine). Provided he doesn't do so ex cathedra, it also won't be the first time that's happened in history, so trust the Holy Spirit.
It was always, ALWAYS going to be the case that when the Generation of '69 became Cardinals and Popes that things would get really ridiculous. Let's all just pray and be patient.
To echo my favorite Pillar comment of all time: "The Church does not get eaten by the eels at this time."
I once knew someone who could recite the entire movie by heart.
Pretty convenient line. Just because it happened before doesn't mitigate the evil.
I guess a new Pope or Bishops in charge or whomever can someday say, “oh, shucks, this document is invalid,” right? Like that committee about birth control before St Paul VI promulgated “Humanae Vitae”.
In the end, as a woman, it is a wonder to me that it’s thought that women don’t have power/ don’t have a say in the church. The real power as a woman is relational it seems to me. All sorts of women have influenced the church, seen and unseen. The closer we follow Mother Mary and say, “do whatever He tells you,” … that’s power!! That’s biological and spiritual motherhood. That’s the power crux.
An answer to your rhetorical question, it is the Holy Spirit who is in charge of it all.
God permits everything. He does not desire everything. Nor does He desire everything that happens in the Church. The leaders of the Church have incorrectly claimed God's assistance or approval when later events or basic theology have made it clear that God neither coils nor did approve.
Asking whether our leaders are gaslighting us about God's hand in this is not an anti-Catholic question. This is new, so it has to be analyzed as something new and tested. It cannot be accepted uncritically.
It appears the core issue is governance. Governance wields power and control. They appear to be the backbone of what we now experience. Theron lies the fear that seems to dominate.Jesus was about neither.