The Synod of Catholic Falsification

[metis]

Because it's all irrelevant. I'm talking about the current synod and its agenda and you're prattling on about the early Church and Vatican II.

Our Catholic tradition comes from the early Church, so why is that so irrelevant to you?

The fact that you're still active in this thread makes me doubt that.

I've given you some sources I've used that are useful on this matter, all you have given us are your opinions.

 

[Glaurung]

Our Catholic tradition comes from the early Church, so why is that so irrelevant to you?

Because we're taking about a synod where fundamental Catholic teaching pertaining to the moral law is being openly questioned and attacked. No one who wasn't born yesterday can fail to see the clear agenda of this charade. That agenda is an explicit call for the Church to change her teaching in regards to sexual ethics. Your red herrings are a distraction from what is going on now in this moment of history.

 

[metis]

Because we're taking about a synod where fundamental Catholic teaching pertaining to the moral law is being openly questioned and attacked. No one who wasn't born yesterday can fail to see the clear agenda of this charade. That agenda is an explicit call for the Church to change her teaching in regards to sexual ethics. Your red herrings are a distraction from what is going on now in this moment of history.

The Church has gradually accepted more and more from that which science and experience has shown us; thus, to ignore both is basically slipping into Dark Age mentality. It is also this reluctance and slowness to change that has alienated so many so as to leave the Church over the years.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I have been thinking a lot about Catholicism lately and what I do or do not believe. Whether or not Rome's claims are credible given that the Francis papacy has done much in my eyes to undermine said claims. Nonetheless whether or not Bergoglio himself personally holds to heretical ideas is a distraction in my view. The real point is that he has emboldened and empowered those who clearly do wish to see the Church's perennial teachings changed to align with the prevailing opinions of western society.

Can you be more specific?

 

[Glaurung]

The Church has gradually accepted more and more from that which science and experience has shown us; thus, to ignore both is basically slipping into Dark Age mentality. It is also this reluctance and slowness to change that has alienated so many so as to leave the Church over the years.

Science cannot tell us whether or not it is moral to engage in certain acts because science does not deal with questions of moral licitness. As for alienating people, let them be alienated. The truth (if Catholicism is indeed true) is what it is and if the majority reject then so be it. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Can you be more specific?

I can, but I decline to be so because the pope's sympathies have been everything but subtle. And I have no patience for anyone who is going to pretend otherwise. No, I won't be gaslit by those who would dishonestly pretend that the obvious isn't obvious.

Spoiler: That what I see with my own eyes isn't real

 

[Estro Felino]

I can, but I decline to be so because the pope's sympathies have been everything but subtle. And I have no patience for anyone who is going to pretend otherwise. No, I won't be gaslit by those who would dishonestly pretend that the obvious isn't obvious.

We are speaking of a Pope who put statues of a pagan idol into Saint Peter's Basilica. And there are movies where he blesses them with his hands. There are movies where they perform some weird pagan rituals with them.
Pachamama cult in the Vatican.

At this point, I demand that the Greek statue of Venus Capitolina, portraying a naked Aphrodite is brought into the Vatican and blessed. No double standards.

 

[Glaurung]

We are speaking of a Pope who put statues of a pagan idol into Saint Peter's Basilica. And there are movies where he blesses them with his hands. There are movies where they perform some weird pagan rituals with them.

Could you imagine any of the pre-conciliar popes doing anything which could give even the slightest impression of an endorsement of paganism?

I think this is why so many in the Church feel so threatened by the traditionalists. Because there is a disparity between the pre and post Vatican II Church that goes far beyond mere tone.

 

[Estro Felino]

Could you imagine any of the pre-conciliar popes doing anything which could give even the slightest impression of an endorsement of paganism?

I think this is why so many in the Church feel so threatened by the traditionalists. Because there is a disparity between the pre and post Vatican II Church that goes far beyond mere tone.

We have had Pope Borgia. The Church has survived. It will survive.

 

[Estro Felino]

Actually Pope Borgia was a loyal Pope to Christendom.
So...yes..we are in a far worse situation.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I can, but I decline to be so because the pope's sympathies have been everything but subtle. And I have no patience for anyone who is going to pretend otherwise. No, I won't be gaslit by those who would dishonestly pretend that the obvious isn't obvious.

If you want to talk about it then it's fair to know what exactly are we talking about. One example of changing teachings please.

 

[Glaurung]

If you want to talk about it then it's fair to know what exactly are we talking about. One example of changing teachings please.

If my fears are correct then the ultimate aim of this pontificate is to reform the Church's practice in a decisively progressive direction on most if not all of the hot button issues. He cannot implement such changes outright by decree because that would almost certainly cause a catastrophic schism that could well destroy the Catholic Church as an institution. So instead the modus operandi has been to use "synods" in an attempt to introduce progressive concessions gradually. So far this as failed to result in any concrete change (formally anyway) and I think this is because the previous synods failed to quell the conservative voices in the Church.

The problem as I see it is that if the changes desired by the progressive wing of the Church are implemented then the Catholic Church loses its legitimacy. There is no salvaging indefectibility in the face of such blatant contradiction. Either what the Church teaches (on faith and morals) is actually true and thus irreformable or Catholicism itself is bogus.

 

[metis]

If my fears are correct then the ultimate aim of this pontificate is to reform the Church's practice in a decisively progressive direction on most if not all of the hot button issues. He cannot implement such changes outright by decree because that would almost certainly cause a catastrophic schism that could well destroy the Catholic Church as an institution. So instead the modus operandi has been to use "synods" in an attempt to introduce progressive concessions gradually. So far this as failed to result in any concrete change (formally anyway) and I think this is because the previous synods failed to quell the conservative voices in the Church.

The problem as I see it is that if the changes desired by the progressive wing of the Church are implemented then the Catholic Church loses its legitimacy. There is no salvaging indefectibly in the face of such blatant contradiction. Either what the Church teaches (on faith and morals) is actually true and thus irreformable or Catholicism itself is bogus.

So, do you believe that the Church's position on war and Judaism has never changed? How about the concept of the Trinity?

 

[Glaurung]

So, do you believe that the Church's position on war and Judaism has never changed? How about the concept of the Trinity?

There are limits to what I am willing to accept. The formal embrace of the morality of secular modernity is beyond what I can accept from a Church that claims to teach perennial truth.

 

[PearlSeeker]

If my fears are correct then the ultimate aim of this pontificate is to reform the Church's practice in a decisively progressive direction on most if not all of the hot button issues.

What issues? Faith is not going to change. The Credo will be untouched.

Morals? I saw the synodal questionary for parishes. Nothing of the like was contained...

 

[Glaurung]

Morals? I saw the synodal questionary for parishes. Nothing of the like was contained...

Don't let the kabuki theater fool you. The conclusions of this synod were predetermined long before the questionnaires were drawn up.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Don't let the kabuki theater fool you. The conclusions of this synod were predetermined long before the questionnaires were drawn up.

No. You have no clue what this synod is about. It's not about dogmas or moral teachings. It's a "synod for a synodal church" - communion, participation, and mission.

In a synodal Church the whole community, in the free and rich diversity of its members, is called together to pray, listen, analyse, dialogue, discern and offer advice on making pastoral decisions which correspond as closely as possible to God's will (ICT, Syn., 67-68).​

 

[Glaurung]

I know perfectly well what they're claiming this synod is about. I'm saying their (the liberal bishops) real goal is to implement progressive reforms using the synodal process as the justification. This is what I believe they want:

1. To open the priesthood to married men and allowing the already ordained to marry.
2. To open the diaconate to women. (Opening the priesthood and episcopate to them would be a more distant reform).
3. To open communion to the civilly remarried. (More or less already achieved).
4. Intercommunion with Protestants, particularly the Lutherans and Anglicans.
5. The overturning and reformulation of Catholic sexual ethics including the acceptance of homosexuality as a positive good.
6. A further clampdown on not only the TLM but also on the Novus Ordo said with traditional elements. (Ad orientem, Latin, altar rails, ect).

How much of this the liberal bishops will get before Francis dies is not something I can predict. I. and II. were meant to be achieved by the Amazon synod, with V. being the project of the current synod. So far only III. has been implemented and even then only tacitly rather than officially. VI. can be pursued whenever while IV. seems to be a mostly German obsession, but perhaps it's something a future synod can attempt.

It could be that the Holy Spirit is blocking Francis from going though with most of the above, hence the failure of I. and II. (so far) and the delay on V. until at least next year. So I await to see what Francis ends up actually doing and that's assuming he lives to October next year. I wouldn't be surprised if he extends the synod indefinitely to make implementing anything his successor's problem.

 

[PearlSeeker]

This is what I believe they want:

1. To open the priesthood to married men and allowing the already ordained to marry.
2. To open the diaconate to women. (Opening the priesthood and episcopate to them would be a more distant reform).
3. To open communion to the civilly remarried. (More or less already achieved).
4. Intercommunion with Protestants, particularly the Lutherans and Anglicans.
5. The overturning and reformulation of Catholic sexual ethics including the acceptance of homosexuality as a positive good.
6. A further clampdown on not only the TLM but also on the Novus Ordo said with traditional elements. (Ad orientem, Latin, altar rails, ect).

1. This has already been allowed in Eastern Catholic Church.

2. Nothing new if you read the Bible and know the role of women in early Church.

Deaconess - Wikipedia

3. You are right but the decision is a matter of a case-by-base discernment.

4. Why not? There is a similar understanding of the eucharist:

Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Wikipedia

5. As I understand the original teaching hasn't changed (and isn't going to). There is just some appeal for more compassion.

6. I guess Jesus didn't pray in Latin at the last supper.