The Synod of Catholic Falsification

[Glaurung]

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.

I do not see how the pope can give the progressives what they want without falsifying the Church's claim to being an infallible authority on faith and morals. Should the end result of the current synod be the embrace of the progressive project then Catholicism exposes itself as false. No thinking person can accept the reversal of millennia old teaching as a mere development of doctrine. No amount of apologetic sophistry can salvage such a defection. Not to mention the schisms such reversals would trigger would be catastrophic for Rome.

And yet, if the synod amounts to a restatement of the status quo, a restatement that settled doctrine cannot change, then what end did the synod serve? If Francis changes nothing then he angers his support base and damages his reputation. He has spent his pontificate empowering the "Catholic left" and has called the largest synod the Church has ever held in terms of participatory scope (a synod which has been telegraphing significant change for the Church since its inception) and I don't see how he could remain credible to the progressive side if it all amounts to a doctrinal nothingburger.

If the Catholic Church is what it claims to be then nothing will change because the truth of Catholicism is predicated on the fact that settled teaching (in this case natural law sexual ethics and holy orders being open to men alone) cannot change. God will not allow it. Unless indefectibility is redefined to meaninglessness there is no getting around that. If the Church gives the progressives what they want then the Church defects. If the Church defects then Catholicism is false.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is a very good thread.
Thank you for bringing up the question.

 

[Estro Felino]

I know so many Catholics who cannot see the Vatican as the embodiment of the RCC, also known as the Universal Church. Why? The Vatican has been inhabited by the likes of Pope Borgia.

The RCC is made up of hundreds and hundreds of dioceses. Each Catholic is supposed to focus on one's own bishop, first of all.
The Pope represents the unity of the Church, of course. But we will never meet the Pope, so why are we supposed to care? We were confirmed by our own bishop, and that's what matters.

That said...there are also priests who celebrate Vetus Ordo Mass in communione Benedicti XVI

 

[Sedim Haba]

I don't have a horse in this race, but gotta say... nothingburger made my day.
www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/nothing-burger-nothingburger-meaning-origin-phrase

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

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.

I do not see how the pope can give the progressives what they want without falsifying the Church's claim to being an infallible authority on faith and morals. Should the end result of the current synod be the embrace of the progressive project then Catholicism exposes itself as false. No thinking person can accept the reversal of millennia old teaching as a mere development of doctrine. No amount of apologetic sophistry can salvage such a defection. Not to mention the schisms such reversals would trigger would be catastrophic for Rome.

And yet, if the synod amounts to a restatement of the status quo, a restatement that settled doctrine cannot change, then what end did the synod serve? If Francis changes nothing then he angers his support base and damages his reputation. He has spent his pontificate empowering the "Catholic left" and has called the largest synod the Church has ever held in terms of participatory scope (a synod which has been telegraphing significant change for the Church since its inception) and I don't see how he could remain credible to the progressive side if it all amounts to a doctrinal nothingburger.

If the Catholic Church is what it claims to be then nothing will change because the truth of Catholicism is predicated on the fact that settled teaching (in this case natural law sexual ethics and holy orders being open to men alone) cannot change. God will not allow it. Unless indefectibility is redefined to meaninglessness there is no getting around that. If the Church gives the progressives what they want then the Church defects. If the Church defects then Catholicism is false.

Dear Musing Bassist,

Though I do empathise with your loss of direction and sense of confusion in midst of all change; if attempting to tackle the physical and spiritual corruption within one of the world’s most powerful institutions, is heresy, then goodness; what is there to say?

Had the Catholic faith truly driven the hearts and actions of the Vatican, there’d have been no need for Pope Francis. Unfortunately, as it stands; there is much need for him yet.

And, if we think of it humbly, the sort of courage that the Pope truly must have to be able to do what he is doing - despite all the risks that it involves - is the sort that only God could install in a mere mortal being.

Nobody knows what the Pope’s efforts finally will result in, but the intentions of his actions are good and I pray for our hearts and minds, that we may remain level headed enough not to lose sight of this.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[exchemist]

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.

I do not see how the pope can give the progressives what they want without falsifying the Church's claim to being an infallible authority on faith and morals. Should the end result of the current synod be the embrace of the progressive project then Catholicism exposes itself as false. No thinking person can accept the reversal of millennia old teaching as a mere development of doctrine. No amount of apologetic sophistry can salvage such a defection. Not to mention the schisms such reversals would trigger would be catastrophic for Rome.

And yet, if the synod amounts to a restatement of the status quo, a restatement that settled doctrine cannot change, then what end did the synod serve? If Francis changes nothing then he angers his support base and damages his reputation. He has spent his pontificate empowering the "Catholic left" and has called the largest synod the Church has ever held in terms of participatory scope (a synod which has been telegraphing significant change for the Church since its inception) and I don't see how he could remain credible to the progressive side if it all amounts to a doctrinal nothingburger.

If the Catholic Church is what it claims to be then nothing will change because the truth of Catholicism is predicated on the fact that settled teaching (in this case natural law sexual ethics and holy orders being open to men alone) cannot change. God will not allow it. Unless indefectibility is redefined to meaninglessness there is no getting around that. If the Church gives the progressives what the want then the Church defects. If the Church defects then Catholicism is false.

I must say I think this is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

- The notion of infallibility is itself rather ridiculous (and arrogant), given that the church is run by fallible men. Given there is abundance of evidence that these men often fall into error, it seems absurd to imagine their pronouncements on faith and morals must be infallible.

- The church has already adapted its moral teaching over the centuries on various matters, as social conditions have changed. Slavery would be one example: the popes owned slaves in early medieval times. Another might be moneylending for interest, which was considered immoral in the early medieval period (hence becoming a niche for the Jews, who were sadly reviled for it). Later this was changed, of course. The notion that the church never changes or adapts its teaching is a myth.

- As far as I can see there is nothing in scripture to stop ordination of women. It seems to be a matter of tradition, later codified into canon law - in effect a practice handed down from the patriarchal society that existed at the time of Christ.

- Celibacy in the priesthood only emerged after 300-400 years, and married priests were in practice widespread up to the C.12th. The Orthodox (whose priesthood is recognised as authentic by the Catholic church) permit married priests to this day.

- The application of the concept of "natural law" to sexual practices is highly contentious and looks to many like overreach. The teaching that contraception is sinful is particularly contorted and absurd, which of course is why almost nobody follows it.

In purely practical terms, it is obvious that ordaining women and permitting married clergy would do much to address the lack of vocations to the priesthood and even more to combat the scourge of sexual abuse within the church. Neither of these things seems to have anything to do with "faith and morals".

To refuse to contemplate such changes purely on the basis that the doctrine of infallibility precludes any change in church practice, strikes me as I say as looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope: starting with a dubious doctrine and using that to stamp out beneficial adaptation. The idea that the Catholic church will somehow cease to be, if it drops this nonsense about infallibility, seems totally out of proportion.

 

[PureX]

If my faith required an "infallible" source of control my first question would be how weak is my faith? How can I even call it faith at all? When it cannot think or act in accord with it's own spirit?

I mean, is that faith in God? Or is it in the religious organization operated by very flawed men? And if it is the latter, why I am doing this?

These kinds of questions are why I determined long ago never to allow any human being to presume to stand between myself and God. Nothing good will ever come of it.

 

[Glaurung]

Though I do empathise with your loss of direction and sense of confusion in midst of all change; if attempting to tackle the physical and spiritual corruption within one of the world’s most powerful institutions, is heresy, then goodness; what is there to say?

That the Church is corrupt is not a question of dispute. But the sexual and financial shenanigans of clerics is not the question I am concerned with here. The question is the truth of the Catholic faith itself.

Had the Catholic faith truly driven the hearts and actions of the Vatican, there’d have been no need for Pope Francis. Unfortunately, as it stands; there is much need for him yet.

The pope has brought the whole faith into question. He has brought the faith into question by empowering modernist heresy. It is not clear to me that the pope believes that the Catholic faith teaches perennial truth so much as he believes in a perpetual dialectic where truth becomes little more than the prevailing asperations of the current moment. The men he has empowered do not for the most part believe that the Church's moral teaching based on natural law is as binding today as it was yesterday.

And, if we think of it humbly, the sort of courage that the Pope truly must have to be able to do what he is doing - despite all the risks that it involves - is the sort that only God could install in a mere mortal being.

The courageous thing to do would be to affirm the truths of the Catholic faith especially in regards to morality. If Catholicism is actually true then the moral law will not and cannot change. You do not get to claim to possess a teaching authority from God himself while simultaneously leading people to believe that settled moral doctrine is subject to change. Either Catholic teaching is from God and is therefore irreformable or it is not and the Church's claims are bogus. You cannot have it both ways.

Nobody knows what the Pope’s efforts finally will result in, but the intentions of his actions are good and I pray for our hearts and minds, that we may remain level headed enough not to lose sight of this.

I do not know what his intentions are but the intentions of those he has empowered are crystal clear. If this ridiculous synod results in definitive changes to the Church's teaching on faith and morals then the entire edifice of Catholic authority falls apart. Truth does not contradict itself.

But perhaps this synod is a blessing in disguise. If the Church defects then I will have hard proof that the Catholic Church cannot be what it claims to be. It would take the direct intervention of God himself to fix such a situation should it happen.

 

[Estro Felino]

ìAnother might be moneylending for interest, which was considered immoral in the early medieval period.

When did it stop being unchristian, according to the Holy Catholic Church?
As far as I know, it still is.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

That the Church is corrupt is not a question of dispute. But the sexual and financial shenanigans of clerics is not the question I am concerned with here. The question is the truth of the Catholic faith itself.


The pope has brought the whole faith into question. He has brought the faith into question by empowering modernist heresy. It is not clear to me that the pope believes that the Catholic faith teaches perennial truth so much as he believes in a perpetual dialectic where truth becomes little more than the prevailing asperations of the current moment. The men he has empowered do not for the most part believe that the Church's moral teaching based on natural law is as binding today as it was yesterday.


The courageous thing to do would be to affirm the truths of the Catholic faith especially in regards to morality. If Catholicism is actually true then the moral law will not and cannot change. You do not get to claim to possess a teaching authority from God himself while simultaneously leading people to believe that settled moral doctrine is subject to change. Either Catholic teaching is from God and is therefore irreformable or it is not and the Church's claims are bogus. You cannot have it both ways.



I do not know what his intentions are but the intentions of those he has empowered are crystal clear. If this ridiculous synod results in definitive changes to the Church's teaching on faith and morals then the entire edifice of Catholic authority falls apart. Truth does not contradict itself.

But perhaps this synod is a blessing in disguise. If the Church defects then I will have hard proof that the Catholic Church cannot be what it claims to be. It would take the direct intervention of God himself to fix such a situation should it happen.

I think it is not only possible, but indeed more correct to say, that what changes over time is not God’s law, but man’s understanding of it.

And to believe that Man over time can, ought to and will improve his understanding of what God’s law truly is, is not heresy - it is humility and wisdom.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Estro Felino]

If my faith required an "infallible" source of control my first question would be how weak is my faith? How can I even call it faith at all? When it cannot think or act in accord with it's own spirit?

I mean, is that faith in God? Or is it in the religious organization operated by very flawed men? And if it is the latter, why I am doing this?

These kinds of questions are why I determined long ago never to allow any human being to presume to stand between myself and God. Nothing good will ever come of it.

I perfectly agree with it.
I don't know anyone in my country (Catholilandia) praising the Vatican. But they still go to Church because of holy, good priests.

 

[Father Heathen]

Pope Francis is just a decent fella trying to polish a turd.

 

[Glaurung]

To refuse to contemplate such changes purely on the basis that the doctrine of infallibility precludes any change in church practice, strikes me as I say as looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope: starting with a dubious doctrine and using that to stamp out beneficial adaptation. The idea that the Catholic church will somehow cease to be, if it drops this nonsense about infallibility, seems totally out of proportion.

Changing Church doctrine in a progressive direction will do nothing to benefit the Church. It has been tried by mainline Protestantism. Nor can it happen if the Church is indefectible.

If my faith required an "infallible" source of control my first question would be how weak is my faith? How can I even call it faith at all? When it cannot think or act in accord with it's own spirit?

It is an article of the Catholic faith that Christ founded a church. He founded the Church and bestowed upon it a teaching authority headed by Peter and his successors (the popes). This teaching authority cannot fall into error (on faith and morals) because Christ himself promised it would not.

I mean, is that faith in God? Or is it in the religious organization operated by very flawed men? And if it is the latter, why I am doing this?

Belief in God could mean almost anything. My faith (as battered as it is right now) is not a mere theism but a belief in a historical event. The birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ founded a church with the authority to teach and bind and therefore to reject that church is to reject the will of Christ. But that authority is not an arbitrary positivism. The Church cannot teach whatever it wants but what has been handed to it by divine revelation. Pope Francis has no more authority to accept gay marriage then he does to bind the Church to Arianism.

Therefore if the Magisterium embraces heresy (as some clerics already have) then the entire justification for the Church's authority collapses. If Rome's claims about itself are true then the changes so desired by the world are impossible for the Church to make. Because those changes would be based on lies and God does not lie.

And to believe that Man over time can, ought to and will improve his understanding of what God’s law truly is, is not heresy - it is humility and wisdom.

If sodomy is in fact permitted under the divine law then Catholicism is false nonetheless.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

If sodomy is in fact permitted under the divine law then Catholicism is false nonetheless.

Dear Musing Bassist,

If your faith, or lack thereof, rests upon nothing but something as mundane as a question over sodomy; may such trivial issues perhaps have blinded you to the central, spiritual message of religion…?

In general (and forgive me, those of you whom I by this offend), a Catholic who chooses to contemplate the meaning, role and morale of sodomy, rather than the priceless, spiritual message of God, has entirely lost touch with what his faith is about and would do well to start again from the beginning.

Alternatively; he could abandon his idea of himself as Christian and dedicate his time to more worldly matters. In his own name, as opposed to in name of any faith.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Estro Felino]

Pope Francis is just a decent fella trying to polish a turd.

I don't think he will ever want to meet our Prime Minister...because she is too "rightist".
Pope Francis will go on receiving Pelosi, and all leftists from all over the world.

That can give an idea of how separated Church and State are, here.

He is defined as a rainbow pope by many Italian Nationalists that would never want to meet him, not even in a parallel universe. Not only because of the countless reasons listed by the OP...
but also because the Vatican is a Masonic lair.

 

[PureX]

My faith (as battered as it is right now) is not a mere theism but a belief in a historical event. The birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ founded a church with the authority to teach and bind and therefore to reject that church is to reject the will of Christ. But that authority is not an arbitrary positivism. The Church cannot teach whatever it wants but what has been handed to it by divine revelation.

I'm not here to make you doubt your own choices. I am only sharing how I resolved this issue for myself (as I was raised Catholic). And for me, faith is not blind, stupid, obedience to some religion of man's, or some religious leader. Faith is faith in God. And in the divine spirit of God that dwells within each of us as reflections of our creator. I need no religious intermediary. And neither does anyone else. We all have equal access to God's spirit within us. Faith means trusting in that spirit within enough to allow it to guide our actions in life. If we need or want a religion to help us do that, that's fine. But religion is just an aid, not a dictator. To be used so long as it's useful, and set aside when it's not.

Once I got hold of that spirit within, and learned to trust in it as best I can, I didn't need all that religiosity, anymore. I didn't need to pretend to know things that I didn't know, and call it "belief".

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't think he will ever want to meet our Prime Minister...because she is too "rightist".
Pope Francis will go on receiving Pelosi, and all leftists from all over the world.

That can give an idea of how separated Church and State are, here.

He is defined as a rainbow pope by many Italian Nationalists that would never want to meet him, not even in a parallel universe. Not only because of the countless reasons listed by the OP...
but also because the Vatican is a Masonic lair.

They should all stick to baking pizza pies. Also, they probably wouldn't want to meet a transperson, either. Something to think about.
As for the "masonic" nonsense, don't let moronic conspiracy theories distract you from actual real world issues, such as war crimes and human rights violations.

 

[Estro Felino]

They should all stick to baking pizza pies. Also, they probably wouldn't want to meet a transperson, either. Something to think about.
As for the "masonic" nonsense, don't let moronic conspiracy theories distract you from actual real world issues, such as war crimes and human rights violations.

We are discussing Papacy here, actually. It is the Pope who dislikes us Nationalists.
For example...as a reaction, Steve Bannon ‘told Italy’s populist leader: Pope Francis is the enemy’

If people like @Musing Bassist feel disoriented, it's because this pope is so different than Wojtila and others.

 

[Father Heathen]

We are discussing Papacy here, actually. It is the Pope who dislikes us Nationalists.
For example...as a reaction, Steve Bannon ‘told Italy’s populist leader: Pope Francis is the enemy’

Nobody takes The nationalists or Bannon seriously, so it's irrelevant.

If people like @Musing Bassist feel disoriented, it's because this pope is so different than Wojtila and others.

It's a bad idea for any human to presume to represent and speak for god. God doesn't need self-appointed, self-serving middlemen. It would be best if the church were dissolved, especially for the sake of children.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nobody takes The nationalists or Bannon seriously, so it's irrelevant.
It's a bad idea for any human to presume to represent and speak for god. God doesn't need self-appointed, self-serving middlemen. It would be best if the church were dissolved, especially for the sake of children.

Christians' spirituality has lots to do with the afterlife. With the other world.
Because in the other world any lie, any deception, any fraud will be disclosed, exposed and punished.
We Christians couldn't care less about what people call "worldly justice".
It's a miserable, phony justice.

If this Pope has never done anything against Christendom, good.
If he is inspired by God, good.
He is not eternal...he will surely die before I do. He will be judged by God.