PabloSerna said:

---

Apologies if I misunderstood your initial remark. Some people, not saying you, were surprised to find out more people (lay, religious, clergy) were added.

So here is point to remember, it helped me, this upcoming Synod (2 years!) will put out a non-binding report when it is all over. It's more of a temperature check or a "thorns and roses" kind of thing you do in Scouting after a camp out.

After that, the Pope will put out an encyclical which will be inspired by the whole Synodal process going back to 2019. That document, will give pastoral direction to all the Bishops.

HTH

---

No worries.

I would like to know how you would answer this question: why is James Martin being invited to attend?

File5 said:

---

From what I can tell Synodality is actually a synonym for word salad. They could have boiled it down to one sentence: We all need to listen to others to understand their experiences.

But someone somewhere will be talking and opining. And make no mistake, it won't be the traditional voices from the listening sessions, those will be censored/filtered.

To be sure, when some long-held Church teaching changes as a result of the Synod you rad trads better be listening and not talking or opining.

---

Word Salad. Very much so.

Wait until that report comes out

You ain't seen nuthin' yet

"Barron views the synod not as an opportunity to bring about reform but to strategize about how to effectively evangelize and accompany people from all walks of life.

"It's much more about strategy," Barron continued. "A lot of people, at least in the West, I think, feel alienated from the church for different reasons. And are there better strategies we can adopt to reach out to them, re-engage them, and so on?"

Barron participated in the 2018 Synod on Young People in Rome and said that it was a positive experience, giving him hope for the 2023 synod.

Yet, in the interview, Barron acknowledges that he doesn't fully know what to expect during the synod, but he trusts Pope Francis to guide it with wisdom and responsibility.

"I think that's what we'll be talking about," said Barron. "So I'll take the pope at his word. I don't think we're discussing doctrine." "

https://catholicvote.org/bishop-barron-comments-on-appointment-to-synod/

Synodicalisminity
by Amy Welborn - Charlotte was Both

Quote:

---

SEO, that, buster!

Much news and opportunity for reflection and comment, given the past week's stash of news related to both the synod and the new batch of cardinals and the new head of the doctrinal office who apparently is not a big doctrine fan nor of clerical accountability, etc.
So there's that.

In order to guide my thoughts, I'll start by pointing you to what I've already said. Perhaps in rereading that stuff myself, I'll think of a new twist.

But first, a few points:

I maintain and have since the beginning of this nonsense that while self-described Catholic progressives have made careers out of sneering at the "Catholic ghettos" of past eras, I don't think the tightest community of Irish Catholics crowded on Orchard Street in 1873 have a thing on the the Synod-obsessed of 2023 when it comes to solipsistic insular clubiness. Ghetto, indeed. Bubble, indeed.
Agenda-driven ideologues and bored careerists, present!

How anyone who actually lives and interacts with human beings in the real world, who actually does listen to and live amongst the seeking, the hurting, the suffering, the questioning, the lost, the indifferent can think that the best use of Church resources and energy this moment is on this process and event is beyond me.

Unless it's actually all…

Nah…..

From January 2022:

The greatest irony about this irony-stuffed Synod on Synodality is fundamental and glaring. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

It's this:

Anxiously desiring to show that it's a listening Church, institutional church leaders perfectly demonstrate that they aren't listening.

In short:

Take a look at the world around you. If your first response to the seeking, pain, suffering and questions that's glaring evident at every level of society, in almost every home and even every heart is: let's have a meeting on Church process and structure….you're not listening.
…….

Instead of the go out that's packed into every word of the Gospel, every breath of even just this Sunday's readings, we end up with: talk and fight about territory, role, organization and process.

And so, here we go again. Not that the Church isn't always in need of reform. Always. And those reforms can be necessary, indeed, to enable evangelization and service to a broken world to flourish.

But is this the case, right now, with this particular synod, with its particular focus? In this moment?
We've had a global crisis which has impacted the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health of billions…..

Countless human beings are living in fear of illness and death, perhaps never having ever seriously confronted these realities before

Human beings have lost income, jobs and businesses.

Great numbers of human beings struggle with questions and tensions related to the role of government and business entities in their lives.

Globally, human beings and societies are wrestling with questions of the questions of balancing autonomy, social responsibility and risk.

Human beings are flooded with information and assertions and communications, at sea regarding whose voice to trust.

Responses to this crisis have left human beings vulnerable, lonely, abandoned, anxious, fearful and broken and, let's not forget angry.

If your answer to all of that bruised and beaten crisis-soaked world is to spend lots of time and money telling the members of Christ's body his hands, feet and voice on earth that the most important thing they can do right now in this moment is to just keep talking endlessly amongst themselves about themselves….

….you're not listening.


The point: asking Churchy people (individually and institutionally) to spend time and energy on this instead of encouraging actual evangelization and deep engagement with the Works of Mercy is just sad.

From 2021:
Because you know what? All that talk, reducing authority to the person of the guy holding the microphone at the moment, all that ignore the past, trust the Spirit talk comes across to me as trust us more than anything else. Which in turn sounds like a call, not so much to clarity, but to rationalization.

I trust Jesus, Scripture and the warp and woof of Catholic tradition which is ambiguous at times, which shifts and develops, but actually, if you can stop being so rigid and ideological about the whole thing, is actually very consistent and clear on the fundamentals like how to live your life as a disciple of Jesus: sacrificial love, self-denial, detachment, simplicity and then even more sacrificial love.

No matter what your station in life or where your home is or what you do for a living it's the same for all of us.

We don't find more Jesus in chasing the clout of the new. No, in obeying Jesus in humility and openness, informed by the richness and truth of Catholic experience, every day every hour we find something, well new.

We don't do good stuff because The Synod or the Pope Wants Us To. We don't do it even because we feel moved by emotions we'll label the Spirit today.

We follow Christ because we are baptized and he calls us.

And the life he calls us to is difficult, and Church teachers and institutions have failed countless times in articulating it clearly, standing up to cultural, social and political pressures, and yes, living it. But at the same time, with all that we all know what that life is, right? We can obfuscate and rationalize, but we all, deep in our hearts, know and we know we're all falling short, and we know we're more like the rich young man than we want to admit, but we also know without doubt what Jesus says and that he means what he says…



If you follow all of this, you undoubtedly note the various voices always ready to beat down, shame and misrepresent questions and criticism of this event you, closed, anti-Spirit, pope-hater you some past thoughts:

From a few months ago:

But specific to this issue, considering it is, using shorthand, "progressives" who use this tactic, I will point out some irony, because irony is one of my favorite things. I would bet money that the same people who attempt to label questioning of the context and modalities of this synod process as a lack of faith have, in their day, done plenty of contextual analysis of everything from the Scriptures (Well, what Paul was really talking about here was…) to practically every single Church council, act of authority and yes….synod in the past. The conclusion always being: You have to understand this thing in its historical and cultural context. That's where our analysis begins and that's what determines how we'll accept the usefulness and applicability of this decision/teaching/practice in the present.

Which…I don't argue with, mind you. (Much). It's kind of what I do. All I'm saying is that, hey if you're going to tell me that I not only can, but must examine the Church's past with an eye to social, historical and cultural context, and it's permitted to critique them on that basis well, then it's permissible to do it in the present as well. Necessary, even. Might save us time later.

In short: if the process is questioned or critiqued ….try answering those questions in a reasonable and mature manner, treating the interlocutor as the mature, intelligent member of the laity you keep telling us we all are.

Or, to put it more bluntly: If we're allowed to interrogate Church teaching and practice, we are allowed to interrogate the Synod process as well.


Back to 2021:
Catholic life and practice shifts, changes, ossifies and is reformed and renewed. It's the Holy Spirit at work in all of that.

But it's a Spirit whose actions must be carefully discerned and sifted as we engage with it and work so hard to be faithful and, most importantly, to bring the power of the Gospel, Spirit-led, into a hurting world.

Because, as we have seen time and time again, in ancient and recent history, as well as in our own lives: all that heady, optimistic Spirit-talk? As we see all around us, constantly and consistently:
Is there anything in life easier to weaponize, because we are yearning so deeply, than the promise of something new, coming to us via the warm assurances of those who identify the movement of the Spirit good! with whatever they want to happen next?

Resistance to "new" can, indeed, be resistance to the Spirit. It can also be fidelity to Christ. Whether that thing is "new" or not has absolutely nothing to do with the authenticity of the moment, idea or expression. "New" as I said before, is not a meaningful category for discernment in either a positive or negative sense, and neither is "old."
In God's time, they are meaningless terms.

Remember what Paul said up there, about not quenching the Spirit? Let's let him finish the thought:

"Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances…
…. Test everything; retain what is good" (1 Thess 5:19-21).

And then, not precisely related to the synod-talk is a history piece on previous efforts at "Eucharistic revival" in the American Catholic church. I share it with you because of the honest self-criticism in evidence in the words of this 19th century churchman. Would that we could see this type of honesty today:

Quote:

---

What a pity if, when the good, self-sacrificing, faithful people come to the church once a week to lay their worldly cares and troubles before the altar of God, looking for solace and peace for one brief hour, after the long days of toil and weariness, of temptation and maybe sin and discouragement, what a pity, if, when they come for bread the bread of life we give them a stone! and if, when they are longing to lift up their hearts to God, as in the Preface we bid them to do, we rather drag them down to material things, to money, money and schemes for raising money.

---

Maybe substitute meetings, meetings and meetings about more meetings for that last phrase…eh?

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Apologies if I misunderstood your initial remark. Some people, not saying you, were surprised to find out more people (lay, religious, clergy) were added.

So here is point to remember, it helped me, this upcoming Synod (2 years!) will put out a non-binding report when it is all over. It's more of a temperature check or a "thorns and roses" kind of thing you do in Scouting after a camp out.

After that, the Pope will put out an encyclical which will be inspired by the whole Synodal process going back to 2019. That document, will give pastoral direction to all the Bishops.

HTH

---

No worries.

I would like to know how you would answer this question: why is James Martin being invited to attend?

---

Probably because of his ministry to LGBTQ Catholics and his connection to the Jesuits (Pope being a SJ). He had this to say recently:

"It's a two-way street," said Martin. "I hope, if possible, to be able to be one of the voices for LGBTQ people; and at the same time, I hope to listen to voices in the church that I have perhaps not heard before," he said.

As a Cardinal recently said, "It's not Vatican III."

Read her blog and she seems to miss out on the direction the Pope is moving the Church towards. It really is about being a faithful shepherd to a divided flock. Her focus, like many on this board, is about doctrine and the idea that it can be "interrogated" (her words).

If you are a parent and have kids that reject God without even understanding, then this Synod is an important step in addressing that problem. The truth about Jesus and the Kingdom of God are unchanging. However the message has fallen flat on the ears of people who look at the Church dismissively because of scandals like the sex abuse of children, women's role in church leadership, and other aspects of Catholic social justice.

For many, the Church does not speak to them where they are now- on the margins. Pope Francis basically said that we cannot grow stale with theological paralysis and must engage the faithful in their place. This way we can find them and guide them back home (to the sacraments). Jesus will take it from there!

Very good article: https://catholicherald.co.uk/instrumentum-laboris-or-instrumentum-deceptionis/

Commentary on the above article: https://frphillipwdevous.substack.com/p/troubling-signals-from-the-synodal

747Ag said:

---

Very good article: https://catholicherald.co.uk/instrumentum-laboris-or-instrumentum-deceptionis/

Commentary on the above article: https://frphillipwdevous.substack.com/p/troubling-signals-from-the-synodal

---

That second article is a gut punch, and spot on.

How about this from that article,

"As a side note, at the outset of the synodal listening sessions in my own diocese, I suggested all participants should have to pass a true/false test on the statements of the Creed before being allowed to "share." Needless to say, my entirely reasonable suggestion was not adopted."

+++

Why not a poll tax as well? Fr. Phillip's take on the Synod is full of conspiracy and suspicion. I'll put my money on the Holy Spirit every time.

Fear is a powerful drug.

I will say it again - you cannot break God.

Great interview of a German bishop on the German Synod

Take time to read it

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/04/09/the-synodal-way-into-the-german-schism-a-critical-examination/

Are you saying the church's position on slavery has never waivered?

Let's see if we can unpack this one at a time:

Racist- is there some science behind this condition I am not aware of?

Homophobia- again, not aware of the science behind persons who exhibit a level of hate, but please fill us in on your research?

Science Deniers- what?

It would seem that you intend to lump all sin together without distinction. If you remember anything, it is that LGBTQ Catholics seek to live a full life in the church. What is at issue is the fact that the RCC recognizes this sexuality, but has stated it is disordered since 1986 and unnatural. So it is a non-starter until we either know more (science is helpful here) and reaffirm or evolve our understanding of love between two people of the same sex.

Zobel brilliantly laid out the catechism's understanding between human sexuality and the sex act. I now understand why certain Bishops and theologians have said that it needs to be revised because they understand it in the same light.

What is interesting, and I only recently thought about this is kissing. The recently appointed CDF leader, archbishop from Buenos Aires, has a book out about kissing. I started to wonder about this because of the nature of the human mouth. It would seem that is can also be used to show affection at different degrees.

I'm just getting started down that line. Will see what comes of it.

That's the point they are making- it is not a disorder.

As for people who are refusing to vax up, just to clarify, are you referring to the Church denying those seeking religious reasons? As I recall, the church said you cannot claim religious exemption to some Catholics who were seeking protection - are these the people you speak of? If so, I am not familiar with their scriptural basis or moral understanding- maybe you can elaborate?

Clearly the church saw this in a different light, more as a duty not unlike the polio vaccine.

Some asked if doctrine can change and it clearly can and has been updated as we learn more.

Take the homosexual person. Not so long ago it was an abomination or worse. Now, since 1986, it is a disorder.

If you spend enough time around folks, stereotypes and ignorance will be challenged. Good people are really just good people. You can trust your senses in those moments. The details need to be worked out, but the big picture remains.

It's too early, but the feeling is that something about the current doctrine is off. I've tried to put my spin on it that it was written from a traditionalist heterosexual perspective hyper focused on the dual nature of the conjugal act which is unitive and procreative. This makes absolute sense of the sex act between a man and a woman. Not so much between two persons of the same sex.

Now comes an Archbishop who wrote a very interesting book on kissing. As he said upfront, not a theological text but a pastoral guide. Read it before quoting it out of context like many are doing. He is very much spot on.

I won't be surprise if some aspects of his understanding makes it way into an evolution on the current doctrine.

Just me.

I know you know better, however, because you bring up the word "infallible" to my understanding that has only been invoked twice and they both concern Our Lady.

So we are back to doctrine and tradition. I have already pointed out how this does and has evolved over time as the church continues the mission of proclaiming Jesus to the world.

Love between two people is the focus. I believe the church has "put into the deep" as far as love between a man and a woman. Even withstanding a fierce challenge about the role of birth control only to come out stronger with Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical, Humane Vitae.

Now we are at another point in time regarding love between two persons of the same sex. From my perspective, it would seem that some are clinging to the scriptural definition of rape and prostitution for a basis of understanding when it is so clear to others (like myself) that has no connection. This is what is obvious to many young people today- that the church is out of touch.

How many still believe that homosexuality is a choice? What if, as we are now learning, people really are born this way? What if it is true that some people are indeed attracted to people of the same sex and greatly desire to love and be loved by someone of the same sex? What if it is true that they greatly desire to stand before God and the Church and proclaim this love?

It's on the table, let's see what comes of it by minds guided by the Holy Spirit.

Can you check again, I'm pretty sure sodomy is NOT a mortal sin. Sin? Yes. Mortal? Please cite current church teaching. I mentioned already that it has evolved from an abomination to a disorder (c.1986)

Can you elaborate? Thx

Not kidding. Even double checked. So the ball is in your court to point to this "infallible" dogma. Not arguing it is established tradition and doctrine. Just pointing out that you are using a word that is loaded. That is all.

The fact that you bring up polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, and incest as further iterations of love is a straight tell that you have no interest in an authentic discussion. So let's just agree to disagree. No need to devolve into stupidity.

Not sure if you are Catholic, however, the Church distinguishes between the types of sin as venial and mortal. Mortal as you may know involves free will, full knowledge, and grave matter.

Yes, words matter. So just laying out the terms so we can discuss this with some understanding.