This is EXACTLY what the pope wanted. It is a perfect engine for establishing heteopraxy without having to officially change magisterial teachings. Those changes can be justified by the next pope after half of the Church has been blessing same sex unions, etc. for a few years. Once the praxis is there, it's very hard to roll back the clock and easier to just change the catechism and say, "See, the Holy Spirit did this, not the pope!"
Sounds like as much of a muddled mess and as biased as it was expected to be. I question whether the text will actually be amended much between now and Saturday, given the short time frame. Hopefully there are enough faithful bishops and other delegates that will stand up for truth rather than just going with the flow for the sake of preserving a facade of unity and agreement. They must not be afraid to vote down the final document if it contains any falsehoods or any material that would seem to obfuscate or contradict Catholic teaching.
I bet at the first Pentecost nobody was inspired to say “the Church does not reflect on its synodal configuration in order to place itself at the center of the proclamation, but to best fulfill, even if it is constitutive incompleteness, its service to the Kingdom of God.” Can’t imagine anyone being inspired by that.
We can only conclude that the Holy Sprit has lost a bit of sharpness in the 2000 years nobody has been listening to it.
I've had a policy for a long time that if you claim you're being "led by the Spirit" it means you are neither applying your mind to discernment properly nor taking sufficient amount of the fact that you might discern incorrectly, and think you were hearing the voice of God when you were really hearing your own wishes.
More recently I've adopted a policy of replacing "Holy Spirit" with "God" whenever I see it and asking if the result makes sense.
I'm not sure how to even translate "synodality". I used to think it meant greater legal independence and authority for bishops and local groups of bishops, but that seems like an outdated definition by this point. The new definition seems to be "shouting very loudly about listening", which would seem to be a kind of virtue signaling.
I went through many of my CD's recently and one of them made the point that anyone who doesn't have a spiritual director is a fool, mostly due to the reasons you listed in your first paragraph. So I immediately found one and made my first meeting. I had difficulties doing what she told me to do and will talk about it more at my next appointment.
"“establish a committee of theologians to be entrusted with the task of proceeding with the work of terminological clarification” regarding synodality."
So the synod on synodality has proposed a working group to figure out what synodality menas.
Oh, I think we are a serious Church. The current follies (plural) in Rome are not the majority indicators of seriousness about the Faith.
I see the "serious" Church in many of the faithful, who serve in soup kitchens, the St. Vincent de Paul Societies, who answer calls to serve worthy works in parishes, who belong to rosary and prayer groups, in those clerics and laity who try to make the Mass reverent, beautiful and God-loving, in the families and parishes that strive to hand on the authentic Tradition, who read and believe the Scriptures with the mind of the Church, who adore the Lord in the Holy Eucharist and those who evangelize in their sphere of influence. The list could go on.
The sensus fidelium is not and has never been a roll call vote of people who consider themselves Catholic. It is About the quality of the witness, not the quantity of voices.
For example, the witness of John Fisher and Thomas More has drown out any number of voices arguing for a different understanding of marriage and divorce.
More never said why he refused the oath, which wasn't just about divorce and remarriage but also about Papal versus royal authority. Given that his textual polish was the final step in Henry's tract against Luther and that he wrote at the time that he had learned a great deal about the importance of papal authority in reading Henry's work, it seems more likely to me that he refused to sign over the issue of the center of authority than over marriage. After all, both Cardinal Cajetan, O.P. and Martin Luther argued that biblically rulers could have multiple wives for the good of the state.
Not totally unfair. But in his “Response to Luther,” More derides Luther for his take on polygamy. And I would argue that Henry didn’t want multiple wives, he wanted an annulment and a marriage. So was it about Papal authority? Sure. The Pope’s authority to annul a marriage.
I am reminded of the indescribably horrible siege of Munster in the 16th century. John of Leiden, the leader of the besieged garrison, declared polygamy all round and took sixteen wives for himself. Once the Catholic bishop regained his city, he was definitely was definitely not keen on mercy for John.
Neither Cajetan nor Luther supported polygamy all round. They supported it for kings because in Scripture most of the kings of Israel, including David, had many wives. This allowed them to cement alliances with marriage and guarantee a successor. So they supported it for kings only.
I can see the sense in supporting polygamy only for kings. Henry VIII practised serial polygamy in his search for a male heir. And Marie Antoinette was married to the Dauphin to cement a French-Austrian alliance. A Catholic monarch seeking friendly relations with a neighbouring country could contract only one such marriage.
John of Leiden was a very different case, being the sort of guy who gave religious loonies a bad name. No wonder that both Lutheran and Catholic rulers clamped down on Anabaptists.
I can already see parts of the report that will be quoted by media as a sign that the church is opening the door to the matters that have been doctrinally defined
> Mentioning issues “relating to gender identity and sexual orientation, the end of life, difficult marital situations, and ethical issues related to artificial intelligence,” the document urged “initiatives that enable shared discernment on controversial, doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues.”
Not to mention that the report mentioning that there are people in the synod that are open to and pushing for women ordination.
To understand synodality you have to know that the obsession of post V2 liberal modernists is power. It's what they think about, what they're concerned about, what they want. This ideology attracts people who are "into" power. It is the characteristic flaw of that generation.
This is obvious in the German synodal way, which is run by secular people who see power in the money and institutions of the German Church and are trying to seize it by insincere emotional appeals to the abuse crisis. Less obvious maybe with the Synod on Synodality, but you can see it there with the various obsessions (besides the surface level sex ones): Structures; Dialogue; Women must be heard! It's all about who is running things with even a strain of fear that somehow someone else would run things and "I would lose control."
You can see this power-fixation in Pope Francis himself. He has changed the office of the papacy into this weird thing where he has to be consulted on everything: individuals are constantly moved around, the rules are constantly changed without warning or discussion and he himself has come to rely more and more on weak and compromised individuals who for various reasons would never dream of stepping out of line or having their own opinions.
So much ambiguous gobbledygook, but then I'm not sure those writing these proposals and "Letters" have a clue about what they are saying.
It's like spinning a raffle drum filked with words and pulling out words to see which ones might, vaguely, fit into a sentence.
Personally, I'm glad to hear Bishop Daniel Flores state why according to Tradition the "sensus fidelium" does not apply to the Synod.
Too often the "Tradition," especially of the East used in an incorrect.and wreckless way to try to justify what is happening at the Synod.
In the East we have a full text of the ordination of a deaconess (parallel to the one used for male deacons). But neither one clearly delineates the exact ministries to be assigned to the ordinand.
We know women did not regularly serve in the altar. The did not intone the Litanies or give the diaconal commands at the Liturgy. They did not liturgically proclaim the Gospel, (except in the rare case of a Hegumena-Abbess doing so in her own monastery) and in normal circumstances they did not distribute the Holy Gifts.
They served women and children as ministers who went into the baptismal pool with women, as visitors to the sick, they catechized and went where men could not go due to the constraints of modesty and propriety.
They did not serve, on par, with male deacons.
While given the grace of office as demonstrated in this extent text they did not serve as male deacons did.
This “ gathering” has no authority. Bishops need to step forward and condemn its claim of authority. Let’s see who comes forward. Should we hold our breath?
This is so tiresome and matching expectations. I pray for the influence of the Holy Spirit and not the "spirit of the age" in the coming weeks, months, and years to come.
"...... synodality can be broadly understood as the march of Christians towards the Kingdom, together with all humanity".
Are we talking Universal Salvation All Round? This would be consistent with Pope Francis' audience on 11th October 2017, but, as ever, the meaning is unclear.
Color me cynical but I have seen this before during the 2014/15 synods and during religious formation in the seminary. Recall Cardinal Pell’s objections at the end of the 2014 synod wherein he cited manipulation; after which he was falsely accused and spent over a year in prison. Also recall that those who objected at the 2014 synod were not invited to the 2015 synod. Recall also how quickly Amoris Laetitia was produced which included previous writings of our new head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. In seminary, during a Saturday mandatory house meeting we spent the day “dialoguing” about our particular house’s goals and atmosphere. The brother Presentor came in from another house and had a series of blank newspaper on tripods. And moving from one to the next throughout the morning he guided us toward our goals which were elicited from both the senior and student members. The senior members did the most talking and of them only a few took advantage and his or the few had their comments written down. After lunch, the Presentor began again and started by saying to the house, “This is what you decided this morning.” I stopped him and asked a question along these lines, “You mean if we didn’t say anything this morning during the process we automatically have brought in on this decision?” He said, “Yes.” For this process, silence is consent. I don’t remember the name of the workshop but it had Minnesota something to its title. Anyhow, Fr. Richard Neuhaus commented that the liberals get their way by “meeting” people to death.
St Thomas More has a great argument about "silence betokens consent" with his repulsive accusers in "A man for all seasons". At most meetings and conferences, secular and religious, which I have attended silence does mean consent. If you had any strong coherent objections, you should have spoken up. Unfortunately, the scrupulous debater usually needs time to think out a good response and assemble evidence. The unscrupulous are happy with emotion and bluster.
It's very hard to counter a well-put bad idea coming from a good orator. It's not at all fair to say "if you can't express an objection eloquently, logically, calmly, orally, without consultation with others, and without reading from notes, within the next two hours, you've bought in ". I don't care how universal that practice is, it's manipulative.
At my workplace, when someone wants to ensure people buy in, he names each person and requires him to state an opinion explicitly, and if that opinion is negative he is not allowed to respond or object except to ask legitimately clarifying questions. That doesn't mean we require unanimity on everything but it does give everyone a legitimate opportunity to be heard. Sometimes, and these are my favorite, everyone is required to voice an objection or suggestion for improvement. I would almost go as far as to say that if you haven't done that, you don't have any reason to claim group consensus.
But, I did speak up at that meeting. I’m the one asking the question about the process that should have been made clear at the beginning……viz. “You students in formation (in simple vows taken annually) whom we the senior community (in professed vows) votes on you every May on whether you continue with us or not, you students please go ahead and speak up.” BTW, I left them before taking Solemn Vows.
This is EXACTLY what the pope wanted. It is a perfect engine for establishing heteopraxy without having to officially change magisterial teachings. Those changes can be justified by the next pope after half of the Church has been blessing same sex unions, etc. for a few years. Once the praxis is there, it's very hard to roll back the clock and easier to just change the catechism and say, "See, the Holy Spirit did this, not the pope!"
Sounds like as much of a muddled mess and as biased as it was expected to be. I question whether the text will actually be amended much between now and Saturday, given the short time frame. Hopefully there are enough faithful bishops and other delegates that will stand up for truth rather than just going with the flow for the sake of preserving a facade of unity and agreement. They must not be afraid to vote down the final document if it contains any falsehoods or any material that would seem to obfuscate or contradict Catholic teaching.
Synodality is great, and we need synods everywhere for everything.
Also, we need to create some committees to establish what synodality actually is. But we know it’s great and needed for everything everywhere.
How much budget do you think we’ll need for these committees? In my opinion nothing is too good for the Holy Sprit, so my recommendation is lots.
They're going to need offices too, don't forget. With good furniture and some staff of their own. Synodality doesn't just run on fresh air, you know.
Now, where are we having lunch?
I hope you are being sarcastic.
You can never have too much synodality. Amirite?
"I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell#######synodality!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVsQLlk-T0s
I bet at the first Pentecost nobody was inspired to say “the Church does not reflect on its synodal configuration in order to place itself at the center of the proclamation, but to best fulfill, even if it is constitutive incompleteness, its service to the Kingdom of God.” Can’t imagine anyone being inspired by that.
We can only conclude that the Holy Sprit has lost a bit of sharpness in the 2000 years nobody has been listening to it.
I've had a policy for a long time that if you claim you're being "led by the Spirit" it means you are neither applying your mind to discernment properly nor taking sufficient amount of the fact that you might discern incorrectly, and think you were hearing the voice of God when you were really hearing your own wishes.
More recently I've adopted a policy of replacing "Holy Spirit" with "God" whenever I see it and asking if the result makes sense.
I'm not sure how to even translate "synodality". I used to think it meant greater legal independence and authority for bishops and local groups of bishops, but that seems like an outdated definition by this point. The new definition seems to be "shouting very loudly about listening", which would seem to be a kind of virtue signaling.
“The new definition seems to be ‘shouting very loudly about listening’”
Brilliant!
I went through many of my CD's recently and one of them made the point that anyone who doesn't have a spiritual director is a fool, mostly due to the reasons you listed in your first paragraph. So I immediately found one and made my first meeting. I had difficulties doing what she told me to do and will talk about it more at my next appointment.
I love that it was so true and said so well. Bravo
I think we need a Synod on the Synod on Synodality to determine synodally if the Synod on Synodality is synodal enough because I’m not convinced.
But clearly that must be because you're not thinking synodally!
I'd like a job there, please. I hear Rome is lovely at this time of year.
"“establish a committee of theologians to be entrusted with the task of proceeding with the work of terminological clarification” regarding synodality."
So the synod on synodality has proposed a working group to figure out what synodality menas.
We are not a serious Church.
Oh, I think we are a serious Church. The current follies (plural) in Rome are not the majority indicators of seriousness about the Faith.
I see the "serious" Church in many of the faithful, who serve in soup kitchens, the St. Vincent de Paul Societies, who answer calls to serve worthy works in parishes, who belong to rosary and prayer groups, in those clerics and laity who try to make the Mass reverent, beautiful and God-loving, in the families and parishes that strive to hand on the authentic Tradition, who read and believe the Scriptures with the mind of the Church, who adore the Lord in the Holy Eucharist and those who evangelize in their sphere of influence. The list could go on.
This is the true "sensus fidelium."
"Knock Knock."
"Who's there?"
"Singing synodal."
"Singing synodal who?"
"Singing synodal-ay-hee-hoo!"
The sensus fidelium is not and has never been a roll call vote of people who consider themselves Catholic. It is About the quality of the witness, not the quantity of voices.
For example, the witness of John Fisher and Thomas More has drown out any number of voices arguing for a different understanding of marriage and divorce.
More never said why he refused the oath, which wasn't just about divorce and remarriage but also about Papal versus royal authority. Given that his textual polish was the final step in Henry's tract against Luther and that he wrote at the time that he had learned a great deal about the importance of papal authority in reading Henry's work, it seems more likely to me that he refused to sign over the issue of the center of authority than over marriage. After all, both Cardinal Cajetan, O.P. and Martin Luther argued that biblically rulers could have multiple wives for the good of the state.
Not totally unfair. But in his “Response to Luther,” More derides Luther for his take on polygamy. And I would argue that Henry didn’t want multiple wives, he wanted an annulment and a marriage. So was it about Papal authority? Sure. The Pope’s authority to annul a marriage.
I am reminded of the indescribably horrible siege of Munster in the 16th century. John of Leiden, the leader of the besieged garrison, declared polygamy all round and took sixteen wives for himself. Once the Catholic bishop regained his city, he was definitely was definitely not keen on mercy for John.
Neither Cajetan nor Luther supported polygamy all round. They supported it for kings because in Scripture most of the kings of Israel, including David, had many wives. This allowed them to cement alliances with marriage and guarantee a successor. So they supported it for kings only.
I can see the sense in supporting polygamy only for kings. Henry VIII practised serial polygamy in his search for a male heir. And Marie Antoinette was married to the Dauphin to cement a French-Austrian alliance. A Catholic monarch seeking friendly relations with a neighbouring country could contract only one such marriage.
John of Leiden was a very different case, being the sort of guy who gave religious loonies a bad name. No wonder that both Lutheran and Catholic rulers clamped down on Anabaptists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_rebellion
I can already see parts of the report that will be quoted by media as a sign that the church is opening the door to the matters that have been doctrinally defined
> Mentioning issues “relating to gender identity and sexual orientation, the end of life, difficult marital situations, and ethical issues related to artificial intelligence,” the document urged “initiatives that enable shared discernment on controversial, doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues.”
Not to mention that the report mentioning that there are people in the synod that are open to and pushing for women ordination.
Oh no!!!
To understand synodality you have to know that the obsession of post V2 liberal modernists is power. It's what they think about, what they're concerned about, what they want. This ideology attracts people who are "into" power. It is the characteristic flaw of that generation.
This is obvious in the German synodal way, which is run by secular people who see power in the money and institutions of the German Church and are trying to seize it by insincere emotional appeals to the abuse crisis. Less obvious maybe with the Synod on Synodality, but you can see it there with the various obsessions (besides the surface level sex ones): Structures; Dialogue; Women must be heard! It's all about who is running things with even a strain of fear that somehow someone else would run things and "I would lose control."
You can see this power-fixation in Pope Francis himself. He has changed the office of the papacy into this weird thing where he has to be consulted on everything: individuals are constantly moved around, the rules are constantly changed without warning or discussion and he himself has come to rely more and more on weak and compromised individuals who for various reasons would never dream of stepping out of line or having their own opinions.
IMO, to understand what is happening in Rome one has to be under the influence.
So much ambiguous gobbledygook, but then I'm not sure those writing these proposals and "Letters" have a clue about what they are saying.
It's like spinning a raffle drum filked with words and pulling out words to see which ones might, vaguely, fit into a sentence.
Personally, I'm glad to hear Bishop Daniel Flores state why according to Tradition the "sensus fidelium" does not apply to the Synod.
Too often the "Tradition," especially of the East used in an incorrect.and wreckless way to try to justify what is happening at the Synod.
In the East we have a full text of the ordination of a deaconess (parallel to the one used for male deacons). But neither one clearly delineates the exact ministries to be assigned to the ordinand.
We know women did not regularly serve in the altar. The did not intone the Litanies or give the diaconal commands at the Liturgy. They did not liturgically proclaim the Gospel, (except in the rare case of a Hegumena-Abbess doing so in her own monastery) and in normal circumstances they did not distribute the Holy Gifts.
They served women and children as ministers who went into the baptismal pool with women, as visitors to the sick, they catechized and went where men could not go due to the constraints of modesty and propriety.
They did not serve, on par, with male deacons.
While given the grace of office as demonstrated in this extent text they did not serve as male deacons did.
So leave the East alone and out of the equation.
This “ gathering” has no authority. Bishops need to step forward and condemn its claim of authority. Let’s see who comes forward. Should we hold our breath?
This is so tiresome and matching expectations. I pray for the influence of the Holy Spirit and not the "spirit of the age" in the coming weeks, months, and years to come.
Wondering if this particular understanding and push for synodality is Concilium 2.0.
100%
"...... synodality can be broadly understood as the march of Christians towards the Kingdom, together with all humanity".
Are we talking Universal Salvation All Round? This would be consistent with Pope Francis' audience on 11th October 2017, but, as ever, the meaning is unclear.
Color me cynical but I have seen this before during the 2014/15 synods and during religious formation in the seminary. Recall Cardinal Pell’s objections at the end of the 2014 synod wherein he cited manipulation; after which he was falsely accused and spent over a year in prison. Also recall that those who objected at the 2014 synod were not invited to the 2015 synod. Recall also how quickly Amoris Laetitia was produced which included previous writings of our new head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. In seminary, during a Saturday mandatory house meeting we spent the day “dialoguing” about our particular house’s goals and atmosphere. The brother Presentor came in from another house and had a series of blank newspaper on tripods. And moving from one to the next throughout the morning he guided us toward our goals which were elicited from both the senior and student members. The senior members did the most talking and of them only a few took advantage and his or the few had their comments written down. After lunch, the Presentor began again and started by saying to the house, “This is what you decided this morning.” I stopped him and asked a question along these lines, “You mean if we didn’t say anything this morning during the process we automatically have brought in on this decision?” He said, “Yes.” For this process, silence is consent. I don’t remember the name of the workshop but it had Minnesota something to its title. Anyhow, Fr. Richard Neuhaus commented that the liberals get their way by “meeting” people to death.
St Thomas More has a great argument about "silence betokens consent" with his repulsive accusers in "A man for all seasons". At most meetings and conferences, secular and religious, which I have attended silence does mean consent. If you had any strong coherent objections, you should have spoken up. Unfortunately, the scrupulous debater usually needs time to think out a good response and assemble evidence. The unscrupulous are happy with emotion and bluster.
It's very hard to counter a well-put bad idea coming from a good orator. It's not at all fair to say "if you can't express an objection eloquently, logically, calmly, orally, without consultation with others, and without reading from notes, within the next two hours, you've bought in ". I don't care how universal that practice is, it's manipulative.
At my workplace, when someone wants to ensure people buy in, he names each person and requires him to state an opinion explicitly, and if that opinion is negative he is not allowed to respond or object except to ask legitimately clarifying questions. That doesn't mean we require unanimity on everything but it does give everyone a legitimate opportunity to be heard. Sometimes, and these are my favorite, everyone is required to voice an objection or suggestion for improvement. I would almost go as far as to say that if you haven't done that, you don't have any reason to claim group consensus.
But, I did speak up at that meeting. I’m the one asking the question about the process that should have been made clear at the beginning……viz. “You students in formation (in simple vows taken annually) whom we the senior community (in professed vows) votes on you every May on whether you continue with us or not, you students please go ahead and speak up.” BTW, I left them before taking Solemn Vows.