The Cardinals that will of course select the next Pope

Slate article from January

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/01/pope-francis-pell-benedict-conservatives-college-of-cardinals.html

The Banned said:

---

I agree. But it protected from Arianism when that was prevalent in the church. Unfortunately there is not much we can do aside from pray, call out the bad clergy publicly and commend the good clergy publicly

---

I agree and yes, vocally and actively fight it

Did you ever think that maybe there are forces trying to live out the baptismal calling more than ever? That there was/is power hungry (think Curia) blocking the mission?

Captain Pablo said:

---

The Cardinals that will of course select the next Pope

Slate article from January

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/01/pope-francis-pell-benedict-conservatives-college-of-cardinals.html

---

I've seen this take, but I've also seen the take that Francis's emphasis on appointing cardinals from "the margins" may have things slanted a bit more conservatively (relatively) than one might think, as the developing areas of the church tend to skew more conservatively than the western bishops.

And ignore the emoji, I flubbed this post completely before the edit. Hadn't even finished typing it and fat fingered my way to an incomplete post and an emoji the Synodal Way would be proud of.

Athanasius said:

---

---

Interesting he brings up the German synod, and acknowledges that the local church there may fail or lead to schism. Was that a point you want highlighted? What are your thoughts on that?

EDIT - ok watched it. Basically, you can criticize the Church but be nice and constructive about it. I can agree with that but yeah, I think there comes time to speak out against destructive forces

Very familiar. Think Pharisees in Jesus' time. We are seeing the same struggle. Thankfully we know how all this will end.

"The Church in Lumen Gentium tells us that in order to know God's will we are to hear the Word of God, use the sacraments, participate in liturgy, pray, give of ourselves in self-giving love and exercise the virtues."

+++

Put down your sword for just a minute. What is happening now and we have church after church expressing this in the recently released working document for the upcoming Synod of Bishops 24-25, is that there are people being marginalized and excluded.

In the document, under the section, "B 1.2 How can a synodal Church make credible the promise that "love and truth will meet" (Ps 85:11)?" - it recognizes that among the people who do not feel accepted are "LGBTQ+ Catholics." Further, the document notes, "It has surprised some to discover that the synodal style allows the questions that arise from this encounter to be placed in a missionary perspective. These encounters did not lead to paralysis but nourished the hope that the Synod will be a catalyst for this renewal of mission and will prompt us to mend the relational fabric of the Church."

They go on to discuss how the church can "widen the tent" (Is 54:2) and "to proclaim with courage his authentic teaching and at the same time offering a witness of radical inclusion and acceptance." (DCS 30)

Let's be clear, nothing here indicates that the church is blessing anything or changing the CCC. It is saying to the Bishops (target audience) that there are members of the flock that are being excluded.

You are looking beyond the first step, welcoming, and running right to a doctrinal decision. I can tell you, we don't know enough. Even the RCC says as much. What we DO know is that it is not criminal (Uganda).

With all the love and mercy God has shown this sinner, even I know that he wants these little ones at the same table. That is where it begins.

Well I do think that just like is evident here on this board, lay faithful are at opposite ends of the understanding of the mission and who is called to live it out. We are all called to live out this calling. That means that all need to come to the same table and partake in the supper of the Lamb.

It's almost as if some want the people to cure themselves and bypass Jesus the Divine Physician altogether! We can't do it on our own, we need Jesus.

The reason that comment from your region didn't make it into the final document is that it is obviously not true.

I too participated in the Syond on Synodality, which had a heavy emphasis on LGTQ+ concerns. There were a great many questions and statements that also did not make it into the final working document for the very same reason.

As you already know, the Synod 24-25, is for the Bishops to get on the same page. Someone brought up Germany's effort, because it was not part of the Synod on Synodality, as a case in point. The Church in Germany wants to run ahead of the rest of the world. Can't do that.

I think the upcoming Synod that starts in October will be a good thing. It won't move mountains, it's not supposed to.

Bob Lee said:

---

...Specifically in our region, it says that some people believe the TLM is the true mass and need to be re educated. Not kidding. I guess it's possible that someone somewhere in the region said that, but that is not characteristic of the view of a massive majority of people who love the TLM and came to voice their concern with that specifically.

---

I always wonder who these people are. I keep seeing statements like that and the idea of meanie poopoo-headed Latin Mass goers. Are they from the diocesan Latin Masses? Are they from FSSP/ICKSP parishes/chaplaincies? SSPX chapels? Independents? Or are they sedevacantists? Where is the alleged vitriol coming from (outside of independent and sedevacantist camps)? Boots on the ground, I don't see this. I don't see this here in central east coast Florida (3 different diocesan parishes). I didn't see it in Waco or Austin, both diocesan parishes. I met one guy like that in Seattle (FSSP), but he (I hear) identifies as a woman now. I don't see it when I travel. I DO see such stuff online, but then again it begs the question of WHO are these people (from which group)?

And... what exactly do they mean the True Mass? Is it meant to the exclusion of the Paul VI missal? To the exclusion of the Ordinariate? To the exclusion of Divine Liturgy? OR, is it meant that the 1962 missal (and before) is indeed a True Mass as well? OR, are they just misrepresenting the opinion that the Vetus Ordo better expresses the Faith than then Novus Ordo within the Latin Rite?

747Ag said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

...Specifically in our region, it says that some people believe the TLM is the true mass and need to be re educated. Not kidding. I guess it's possible that someone somewhere in the region said that, but that is not characteristic of the view of a massive majority of people who love the TLM and came to voice their concern with that specifically.

---

I always wonder who these people are. I keep seeing statements like that and the idea of meanie poopoo-headed Latin Mass goers. Are they from the diocesan Latin Masses? Are they from FSSP/ICKSP parishes/chaplaincies? SSPX chapels? Independents? Or are they sedevacantists? Where is the alleged vitriol coming from (outside of independent and sedevacantist camps)? Boots on the ground, I don't see this. I don't see this here in central east coast Florida (3 different diocesan parishes). I didn't see it in Waco or Austin, both diocesan parishes. I met one guy like that in Seattle (FSSP), but he (I hear) identifies as a woman now. I don't see it when I travel. I DO see such stuff online, but then again it begs the question of WHO are these people (from which group)?

And... what exactly do they mean the True Mass? Is it meant to the exclusion of the Paul VI missal? To the exclusion of the Ordinariate? To the exclusion of Divine Liturgy? OR, is it meant that the 1962 missal (and before) is indeed a True Mass as well? OR, are they just misrepresenting the opinion that the Vetus Ordo better expresses the Faith than then Novus Ordo within the Latin Rite?

---

I only know of one sedavacantist/anti-Novus Ordo guy. He's very quiet about it. I don't know a single person out there saying it's invalid, and even the podcaster/YouTube personalities they use to say there is a problem agree the NO is valid. They just think it's a terrible liturgy.

Bob Lee said:

---

The Banned said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Well I do think that just like is evident here on this board, lay faithful are at opposite ends of the understanding of the mission and who is called to live it out. We are all called to live out this calling. That means that all need to come to the same table and partake in the supper of the Lamb.

It's almost as if some want the people to cure themselves and bypass Jesus the Divine Physician altogether! We can't do it on our own, we need Jesus.

---

We do need Jesus. And we need the accurate portrayal of Jesus. Not the modern version where He blesses whichever sins we happen to be attached to.

---

I participated in the synod, and I read the synthesis documents. I heard a lot of people voice the same concerns that I have specifically as it pertains to TC. The only thing in the documents that made mention of the TLM that I could find was something between a total caricature and outright lie. Specifically in our region, it says that some people believe the TLM is the true mass and need to be re educated. Not kidding. I guess it's possible that someone somewhere in the region said that, but that is not characteristic of the view of a massive majority of people who love the TLM and came to voice their concern with that specifically.

The synod documents aren't representative of what was talked about in at least my diocese. If anything, it's dismissive. Ultimately, all of this "revelation from the Holy Spirit" is being filtered through the people who work in the chancery responsible with synthesizing everyone's thoughts and grievances. You can look up these people and their titles. That part is interesting in and of itself.

Their concern for people being alienated stops right at the place those people's grievances deviate from their own. The formula is to appeal to the Holy Spirit to justify their desires any time there is a collision of wills. The synod is raw coercion by another name.

---

My parish had the same experience. If anything, there was a desire from our parish laity to reinforce and combat the LGBQRTWXYZ movement. The questions from the synod were on the peripheral for that conversation, but we included our position on this topic and several others regardless but in very clear terms.

The proceeding process at the diocese level: the questions were canned and hardly addressed any of our parish's thoughtful and heartfelt concerns. Very disappointing. Hopefully the message was received.

Quote:

---

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18

---

It's sometimes beneficial to imitate a good Protestant and go to sacred scripture to look for an answer.

The interesting thing about the assertion is that it ignores the cardinalate Pope Francis has appointed in the developing world. Yes, many of the men appointed cardinals in the West have been more politically liberal (although perhaps not as ecclesially liberal), but the men appointed from the developing world have been from places where Christianity and Catholicism in particular tends to be quite anti-postmodern. The volume of these appointments along with recent history (Arinze got a LOT of votes twice and would have been elected if Ratzinger had been a little older when SJPTG died) strongly suggests that the next pope will be a non-Westerner and therefore probably fairly conservative. My own preference is a conservative African so that we can watch the political left meltdown.

I'd commend you to the intercession of St. Pio; "Pray, hope, and don't worry."

The Holy Spirit will send who is needed on that we should agree.

PabloSerna said:

---

The Holy Spirit will send who is needed on that we should agree.

---

We'll see what tune you're singing if things don't go your way

…not looking good. As someone who wants the church to be one, I'm hoping for a conservative pope.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

…not looking good. As someone who wants the church to be one, I'm hoping for a conservative pope.

---

Its neither conservative nor progressive - more about mission, less about ritual.

Captain Pablo said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

The Holy Spirit will send who is needed on that we should agree.

---

We'll see what tune you're singing if things don't go your way

---

Probably the difference between you and me, is that I actually believe that the Holy Spirit was sent to guide the Church. So, I am not singing any tune other than Amen.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

…not looking good. As someone who wants the church to be one, I'm hoping for an orthodox pope.

---

FIFY

PabloSerna said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

The Holy Spirit will send who is needed on that we should agree.

---

We'll see what tune you're singing if things don't go your way

---

Probably the difference between you and me, is that I actually believe that the Holy Spirit was sent to guide the Church. So, I am not singing any tune other than Amen.

---

This is hard to reconcile with the wholesale rejection of the Church's teaching on sexual morality. There are 2 possible inferences from what I've seen.
1. The Church is wrong
2. Homosexuals are different from Heterosexuals in KIND, and therefore the Church's teaching is not applicable. And I would think this is a roundabout rejection of Church teaching, even if she hasn't explicitly said differently.

PabloSerna said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

The Holy Spirit will send who is needed on that we should agree.

---

We'll see what tune you're singing if things don't go your way

---

Probably the difference between you and me, is that I actually believe that the Holy Spirit was sent to guide the Church. So, I am not singing any tune other than Amen.

---

Did the Holy Spirit guide the Church when 2357-2359 were codified?