The Synod of Catholic Falsification

[Glaurung]

You know what... Forget everything.

It has become clear to me that the Church today exists in a state of intractable self contradiction. Since truth cannot be contradictory something must give way. Either Francis and the bishops affirm what the Church has previously taught or they change the teaching of the Church and embrace the ascendant sexual ethics of the secular world. I no longer care at this point. Pope Francis can kick the can down the road a year but if the current synod has established anything it is that a definite decision one way or the other must be made.

Believe it or not but I am sympathetic to both sides.

On the liberal side:

I have mentioned on these forums before that certain aspects of traditional Christian teaching do not make sense to me. I have never been able to fully square in my mind how a loving God of perfect benevolence can permit the majority of the human race to be forever tormented in Hell. I have never been comfortable with the doctrine that any consent to even the slightest degree of sexual pleasure outside the married act open to procreation is a sin against the moral law so severe that a single instance of such consent alone warrants an eternity of conscious torment in supernatural fire. If concupiscence is of such horror to God then why does he permit it to exist so strongly in human race? It does not make sense.

On the conservative side:

The Church claims to be indefectible in faith and morals. What is right and wrong in terms of the sexual faculty is not trivial but fundamental to morality itself. If the Church's picture of the moral law on such a fundamental question has been so monumentally wrong then I do not see how the claims of the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit can be at all valid. Thus the Church must hold to its established teaching or the very basis for the Church's authority is falsified. Either the Church's claims about sexual morality are correct or Catholicism is false.

The way I see it:

Traditional Catholicism is terrifying; liberal Catholicism is incoherent. And the pope and his bishops must make a choice. No more gaslighting, no more evasions. The Church needs to make up its mind about what it really believes.

I saw a lot of beauty in the Catholic faith. In the traditional ceremonies of the Roman Rite. In the Latin and in the high altars I saw a gravitas profound enough to move me to accept the hard teachings that came with it all. The Francis pontificate has taught me that such sentiment is held in contempt by the very men who are supposed to teach and pass down the faith. What a joke.

 

[pearl]

I saw a lot of beauty in the Catholic faith. In the traditional ceremonies of the Roman Rite. In the Latin and in the high altars I saw a gravitas profound enough to move me to accept the hard teachings that came with it all. The Francis pontificate has taught me that such sentiment is held in contempt by the very men who are supposed to teach and pass down the faith. What a joke.

While I can empathize with you, there must be a distinction between what was a loved 'tradition' and what is Tradition which is handed down.

 

[metis]

The Francis pontificate has taught me that such sentiment is held in contempt by the very men who are supposed to teach and pass down the faith. What a joke.

IMO, PF is really trying to get more back to what the early Church was like: more compassionate and less legalistic.

This was quite a turnaround from his upbringing in a very conservative Catholic family, and he said that which did change him is what he saw and experienced in the poorer areas of Buenos Aires, while at the same time middle and upper-income people prayed but did little to help those in need.

IOW, PF recognizes the mandate for us all as found in Jesus' Sermon On the Mount.

 

[pearl]

Some forms of liturgy certainly are more solemn, somber or serious in tone, and the church tells us as much in “Sacrosanctum Concilium”:

Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.
A reverent liturgy should be within the guidelines the church offers, and it should encourage those in attendance to participate humbly, intentionally, respectfully and with gratitude as they strive to move closer to God. Too often, the descriptions of the Latin Mass as “more reverent” cite liturgical attributes that are inspired by European aesthetics and the sensibilities of overwhelmingly white congregations. By default, labeling the Latin Mass as “more” reverent—rather than one source of reverence for an individual Catholic or a group of us—diminishes the real sense of reverence present in our global church.
The deep respect that reverence requires can be displayed in many ways. And it should be displayed in its diversity if we are to live out the universal nature of Catholicism. A community singing and clapping to hymns in Rwanda or Catholics in the Gospel choir praising God in a Mass in Harlem or suburban Catholics belting out a St. Louis Jesuits song are not inherently “less”—or more—reverent than Catholics attending the Latin Mass.

The church acknowledges Gregorian chant as “specially suited” for liturgy but does not exclude guitars from possibly “adding delight to prayer.” There is nothing inherently more reverent about a chapel veil than an African head wrap. Lace garments are not inherently more reverent than felt banners. Various elements of the liturgy might be more formal or more solemn, but we need to stop using the word “reverent” as a stand-in for these other qualities.


And any type of worship, no matter the style, can be irreverent if done with the wrong intention. For example: Using the liturgy as a prop for promoting one’s political beliefs or desires. Treating it as a cudgel to beat other Catholics into agreement or punish those with differing opinions. Catholics of all stripes do this, but there is a particularly egregious example of this type of needless division in Ms. Graham’s article: “The Latin Mass ‘brings the true Catholics out,’” Kristin Kopy, 41, whose husband works for Church Militant, told Ms. Graham.

I don’t think that Ms. Kopy’s opinion is representative of all Latin Mass-goers, or even most of them. But it is not hard to argue that a view of Mass that is inspired by judgment of others is not reverent. And all of us can stand to be reminded at times: What brings out the “real” Catholics is our baptism, and our good-faith efforts to live out that baptismal call to be priest, prophet and king. And to do this with joy and, yes, reverence for the God who sees and reveres us all.
Stop saying the Latin Mass is ‘more reverent’ | America Magazine

 

[metis]

Some forms of liturgy certainly are more solemn, somber or serious in tone, and the church tells us as much in “Sacrosanctum Concilium”:

Therefore sacred music is to be considered the more holy in proportion as it is more closely connected with the liturgical action, whether it adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites. But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship.
A reverent liturgy should be within the guidelines the church offers, and it should encourage those in attendance to participate humbly, intentionally, respectfully and with gratitude as they strive to move closer to God. Too often, the descriptions of the Latin Mass as “more reverent” cite liturgical attributes that are inspired by European aesthetics and the sensibilities of overwhelmingly white congregations. By default, labeling the Latin Mass as “more” reverent—rather than one source of reverence for an individual Catholic or a group of us—diminishes the real sense of reverence present in our global church.
The deep respect that reverence requires can be displayed in many ways. And it should be displayed in its diversity if we are to live out the universal nature of Catholicism. A community singing and clapping to hymns in Rwanda or Catholics in the Gospel choir praising God in a Mass in Harlem or suburban Catholics belting out a St. Louis Jesuits song are not inherently “less”—or more—reverent than Catholics attending the Latin Mass.

The church acknowledges Gregorian chant as “specially suited” for liturgy but does not exclude guitars from possibly “adding delight to prayer.” There is nothing inherently more reverent about a chapel veil than an African head wrap. Lace garments are not inherently more reverent than felt banners. Various elements of the liturgy might be more formal or more solemn, but we need to stop using the word “reverent” as a stand-in for these other qualities.


And any type of worship, no matter the style, can be irreverent if done with the wrong intention. For example: Using the liturgy as a prop for promoting one’s political beliefs or desires. Treating it as a cudgel to beat other Catholics into agreement or punish those with differing opinions. Catholics of all stripes do this, but there is a particularly egregious example of this type of needless division in Ms. Graham’s article: “The Latin Mass ‘brings the true Catholics out,’” Kristin Kopy, 41, whose husband works for Church Militant, told Ms. Graham.

I don’t think that Ms. Kopy’s opinion is representative of all Latin Mass-goers, or even most of them. But it is not hard to argue that a view of Mass that is inspired by judgment of others is not reverent. And all of us can stand to be reminded at times: What brings out the “real” Catholics is our baptism, and our good-faith efforts to live out that baptismal call to be priest, prophet and king. And to do this with joy and, yes, reverence for the God who sees and reveres us all.
Stop saying the Latin Mass is ‘more reverent’ | America Magazine

I'm "mature" enough to remember going to the parish on WMU's campus with my old girlfriend and hearing mass in Latin. It was pretty though, and so was she. Fortunately, I met, fell in love with, and married someone very much like her two years later.

 

[Glaurung]

While I can empathize with you, there must be a distinction between what was a loved 'tradition' and what is Tradition which is handed down.

I'm tired of hearing this. As if it somehow justifies the decades of iconoclasm which has banalized the Roman Rite since the close of Vatican II. Not everything needs to be divine revelation to be important. Let's state the bleeding obvious. The suppression of the Latin Mass and much of the ritual traditions of the Roman Rite is ideologically driven.

Today the Latin Mass is evil and spiritually dangerous, tantamount to an act of borderline schism. But a LGBTQ Mass is an orthodox and praiseworthy expression of Catholicism reaching out to the margins. Now shut up you Eurocentric, racist, Neo Nazi fascist and pick up your tambourine and sing a new Church into being! One with priestesses and gay marriage.

Spoiler: The New Church

What a farcical joke.

 

[Glaurung]

IMO, PF is really trying to get more back to what the early Church was like: more compassionate and less legalistic.

The early Church was downright brutal in its discipline. No, the current project of those running the Church has nothing to do with "compassion". The project is to align the Church with the opinions of the secular west. The creed is Modernism and its liturgical language is German.

 

[Estro Felino]

The early Church was downright brutal in its discipline. No, the current project of those running the Church has nothing to do with "compassion". The project is to align the Church with the opinions of the secular west. The creed is Modernism and its liturgical language is German.

Look...I consider the Nationalists who are now in charge in Italy much more Catholic than Vatican's current management.
Because Salvini, for example has suggested to give 20,000 euros to the couples who decide to get married in a church. That's a beautiful idea, considering our disastrous birth rates and our low wedding rates.
On the contrary...something tells me that Bergoglio will never meet those "bad" Nationalists...because he is too pure, too woke, too leftist to meet them.
And it's good...I mean...real Catholics have rarely had support from the Vatican in the history of the Church.

 

[pearl]

The suppression of the Latin Mass and much of the ritual traditions of the Roman Rite is ideologically driven.

You will not understand the motivation without acknowledging the history of the early Church.

 

[Glaurung]

You will not understand the motivation without acknowledging the history of the early Church.

The motives are as clear as day. It you who is pretending that its all so much more sophisticated than it actually is. And if the synod ends with Catholic teaching being overturned (yes the early Church taught that sexual sin damns a person to Hell, as does the New Testament) then I will consider Rome has having defected.

I am sorry but it's really that simple. If Rome's claims about its indefectibility are true then its teaching on Holy Orders and well as sexual morality are fixed eternal truths. Therefore if these doctrines are in fact changed next year then we know with certainty that Catholicism cannot be true.

 

[Estro Felino]

The motives are as clear as day. It you who is pretending that its all so much more sophisticated than it actually is. And if the synod ends with Catholic teaching overturned (yes the early Church taught that sexual sin damns a person to Hell, as does the New Testament) then I will consider Rome has having defected.

I am sorry but it's really that simple. If Rome's claims about its indefectibility are true then its teaching on Holy Orders and well as sexual morality are fixed eternal truths. Therefore if these doctrines are in fact changed next year then we know with certainty that Catholicism cannot be true. Christianity then will be shown as just a failed doomsday cult it was originally intended to be.

There is also Orthodoxy. RCC is not the only Church.

 

[metis]

The early Church was downright brutal in its discipline. No, the current project of those running the Church has nothing to do with "compassion". The project is to align the Church with the opinions of the secular west. The creed is Modernism and its liturgical language is German.

You are projecting your opinion into the history of the Church, thus not going by what we know how the Church acted. As I mentioned before, there are numerous books that cover this in some detail, so maybe actually order one and read it.

Hanson's "Tradition in the Early Church" is excellent and well linked to early documents, and even Martin Marty's "The First Christians" is quite good. There are many others, including my Catholic-authored favorite, Hitchcock's "History of the Catholic Church".

The Church has continually changed over the centuries, and it undoubtedly will continue to do so.

 

[pearl]

I am sorry but it's really that simple. If Rome's claims about its indefectibility are true then its teaching on Holy Orders and well as sexual morality are fixed eternal truths. Therefore if these doctrines are in fact changed next year then we know with certainty that Catholicism cannot be true.

Imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time. The First Vatican Council declared that the Church possesses "an unconquered stability" and that, "built on a rock, she will continue to stand until the end of time" (Denzinger 3013, 3056). The Church's indefectibility, therefore, means that she now is and will always remain the institution of salvation, founded by Christ. This affirms that the Church is essentially unchangeable in her teaching, her constitution, and her liturgy. It does not exclude modifications that do not affect her substance, nor does it exclude the decay of individual local churches or even whole dioceses.
Dictionary : INDEFECTIBILITY | Catholic Culture

The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thig, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration, with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character." John XXIII

 

[Glaurung]

The Church has continually changed over the centuries, and it undoubtedly will continue to do so.

You're missing the point and it's not a hard point to grasp.

The Church may change in its structure, governance and discipline but it cannot change what has been passed down to it in regards to faith and morals. Scripture is clear that unrepentant sexual sin renders a person illegible for salvation. You cannot "develop" your way out of that.

My contention is not that the Church must remain always the same in every respect in every time, but that the Church is bound to a revelation which is unchanging. The Church cannot appease an unrepentant sinful culture by declaring that its sins are no longer sins. No, sin is still sin and the Church has no power to change that. Not a jot or tittle of revelation is subject to change because it is not the Church's to change. The Church's job is to teach that revelation no matter how unwelcomed by the world it may be.

The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thig, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration, with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character." John XXIII

Again, see my response to Metis. We are not talking about a change in the presentation of Church teaching; we are talking about its overturning should those who run the synod achieve their aims. If the Church is what it claims to be then that cannot happen. The rightfully maligned art posted by the synod's official social media accounts tells you everything you need to know about the goals of those running the synod. Female ordination cannot happen. Nor can the Church be made to endorse what is sinful. (Sodomy, divorce and remarriage, fornication, ect).

If that does in fact happen, either with the close of the synod next year or perhaps with Francis' successor then indefectibility is falsified. If indefectibility is falsified then Catholicism is falsified. What don't you get? A change in the Church's morals is a change in its substance.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Musing Bassist
I am failing to understand where you are getting at. Where this is going.
With all due respect, are you saying you want to abandon Christianity just because the RCC is unholy, in your opinion?
Because the LDS Church, for example has never rejected the pillars of sexual morality.
You can try Mormonism.
There are countless Christian denominations.

But...if you want to deny Jesus Christ...are you sure it has to do with the Vatican synods?

 

[pearl]

If that does in fact happen, either with the close of the synod next year or perhaps with Francis' successor then indefectibility is falsified. If indefectibility is falsified then Catholicism is falsified. What don't you get? A change in the Church's morals is a change in its substance.

Then you deny the very authority of the Magisterium, and the infallibility of the college of bishops.



The dogmas of the faith

88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50

90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."52

The supernatural sense of faith

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth.54

92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."55

93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."56

Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

- "through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts";57 it is in particular "theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth".58

- "from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience",59 the sacred Scriptures "grow with the one who reads them."60

- "from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".61

 

[metis]

You're missing the point and it's not a hard point to grasp.

I took Catholic theology courses in my undergrad work, and I taught it for 15 years to adults, not including teaching a comparative religions course. I've told you what sources I've found to be excellent on this, and yet all you can do is to come back with the above.

S-T-U-D-Y, as I have better use for my time.

 

[Glaurung]

Then you deny the very authority of the Magisterium, and the infallibility of the college of bishops.

Yes, I deny the authority of the Magisterium to endorse gay marriage. I deny the authority of the Magisterium to reject the indissolubility of marriage. I deny the authority of the Magisterium to ordain women. As I would deny the Magisterium's authority to deny the divinity of Christ. The pope and the bishops do not have the authority to bind anyone to heresy.

And that's what I'm damn well saying. If any of the above happens then Francis and his bishops can shove their "infallibility" up their arses. Whatever allegiance to Catholicism I have left will be gone. Because a "Catholic Church" that teaches any of the aforementioned is a sham. Bergoglio is not God. He does not decide truth. He is meant to teach it.

I took Catholic theology courses in my undergrad work, and I taught it for 15 years to adults, not including teaching a comparative religions course. I've told you what sources I've found to be excellent on this, and yet all you can do is to come back with the above.

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.

S-T-U-D-Y, as I have better use for my time.

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

 

[pearl]

The distance between Rome and Germany is as clear now under Francis as it has been in regard to John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and Synodale Weg is a direct challenge to the current pope’s emphasis of the “synodal process.” First, its method is more parliament-like than the discerning approach that Francis prefers. Second, in its emphasis on revising doctrine on issues like ordained ministry, it departs from Francis’s emphasis on the spiritual aspect of the synodal moment, in a pastoral togetherness of the people of God. Additionally, the German synod expresses a Catholic culture that relies on academic theology and on institutional systems of representation of the laity; it is rooted in Vatican II but without the qualms about the compatibility between modernity and Christian faith. It represents a progressive theology in Germany (contrary to liberal Catholicism in the United States, for example) that doesn’t rely on Francis’s leftist positions on social and economic justice. It is a theological culture with which Jorge Mario Bergoglio interacted briefly in 1986, when he decided to abandon his project for a doctoral dissertation.

But, at some point, the German path and Roman way will have to interact. The hope is that these differing approaches to reform will somehow come together rather than collide.

Where German Catholics & Pope Francis Diverge | Commonweal Magazine

 

[Glaurung]

With all due respect, are you saying you want to abandon Christianity just because the RCC is unholy, in your opinion?

If the "Synod on Synodality" results in the Church formally embracing heresy. That is the Church implements a program of reform wherein the Church's teachings on women's ordination and sexual morality are overturned for a more "progressive" direction then I will be almost certainly done with Christianity.

Because the LDS Church, for example has never rejected the pillars of sexual morality.
You can try Mormonism.

Mormonism is scam religion. It is demonstrably false.

There are countless Christian denominations.

Protestantism is not credible because it is ahistorical. Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy is ancient but I have doubts about them. Their grass isn't as green as it may seem at first.

But...if you want to deny Jesus Christ...are you sure it has to do with the Vatican synods?

The silliness and outright banality of the current institution is one thing. The hostility of the current pope and those whom he has empowered to my own worship sensibilities is another. But the prospect of long standing teaching being overturned and rejected. The prospect of Catholicism becoming a form of liberal Protestantism is more than I can accept.

Fundamentally, if Catholicism is true then its perennial teachings are non-negotiable. If that is not the case then what is the damn point of it all?