Marshall McLuhan was a Canadian communication guru of the last century who was probably best known for saying, “The medium is the message.”
As the second and last session of the Synod on Synodality draws near, it occurs to me that something along those lines is apparently what Pope Francis has in mind for the synod, but in a variant form: “The process is the product.”
Although an ever-growing body of synodal reports, summaries, and syntheses already exists, the concluding session, October 2 to October 27, will add many more. A few months after that, the Pope will deliver his own summing up, telling us what he thinks the Synod on Synodality has accomplished. I expect it to be some version of the McLuhanesque insight just suggested: synodality itself is the synod’s result.
Pending that, here are a few thoughts on where we’ve been so far in the three years since Pope Francis launched this process.
Despite lots of happy talk by the Synod’s organizers and boosters about how well things have gone in enlisting the support of the Catholic masses for a synodal Church, I have yet to see much evidence of a truly large number climbing aboard the synodal bandwagon.
Example: the report from the recently concluded diocesan phase of the synod project in the U.S. proudly declared that 700,000 people had taken part. Now, 700,000 are indeed quite a few people, but they are a comparative handful next to the 66.8 million who are the total body of the Church in America.
In due course, we shall be told what steps the process is moving Pope Francis to adopt. Despite mention in some national reports from Western Europe of ordaining women deacons, the Pope has already ruled that out because it would involve conferring the sacrament of Orders on them. As for ordaining “viri probati”—older men of good reputation, most of them married, to serve as priests in places (think Western Europe again) where the priest shortage is acute—we shall see.
And only time will tell whether, as synod organizers keep insisting, the Synod on Synodality has produced a real groundswell of support among the laity for making the process called synodality a permanent feature of Church life. For sure, though, it will leave behind a substantial new bureaucracy committed to fanning the synodal flame.
In this perspective, it may not matter too much that the instrumentum laboris—the working document meant to guide the synod’s deliberations in October—has turned out mostly to be 22 closely printed pages about structures and procedures of the assembly itself.
Seeking, however, to close on an inspirational note, the document strains for an elevated tone:
Everything in this world is connected and is marked by a restless longing for the other. Everything is a call to a relationship…which will ultimately be fulfilled in the convivial sociality of differences, fully realized at the eschatological banquet prepared by God on his holy mountain….When the members of the Church allow themselves to be led by the Spirit of the Lord to horizons that they had not previously glimpsed, they experience immeasurable joy. In its beauty, humility, and simplicity, this is the ongoing conversion of the way of being the Church that the synodal process invites us to undertake.
Good grief! Whoever wrote that is undoubtedly a good soul who wishes the Church well. But it leaves me with a McLuhanesque fear: What if the process that produced those sentences turns out to be the product?
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Synodalism is, I think, a contemporary version of Conciliarism. Constance’s call for regular periodic councils (including in their number, in addition to bishops, theologians and notables of Christendom — as did Constance itself) was quashed, not without difficulty, by the popes of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Finally, after the onset of the Protestant Revolt, a very different kind of Council, Trent, put the kabbosh on Conciliarism and other forms of heterodoxy. Constance became a Council that “was not followed” and, indeed, was contradicted by the decrees of the First Vatican Council.
It is, perhaps, merely a coincidence that Constance was convoked in the name of the “first” Pope John XXIII (later deemed an anti-pope), while Vatican II was convoked by the second Pope John XXIII. This “coincidence” takes on a rather eerie cast, however, when one considers that Vatican II reopened the Conciliar question, together with Constance-like emphasis on national conferences.
Francis is simply driving this neo-conciliarist impetus to its inevitable conclusion.
We can only hope that someday, maybe a century or two from now, our descendants in the Faith will be blessed to be able to say that Vatican II, like Constance, ultimately was a Council that was not followed,
His name is Pope Francis. Are you insinuating That Pope John the XXIII was also a anti-pope? Why would you hope that people not follow a valid council?
Short Answer: Because it was a “pastoral” Council that avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.
Longer Answer: The currently ongoing Synod on Synodality touts itself to the Catholic world as a refreshingly attractive way of accumulating input and advice from every member of the Catholic Church (from Church leadership on down to rank-and-file parishes and parishioners)—input on the directions which the inputters want the Church to take now that it has entered the Third Millennium.
But—the predetermined starting point for all that synodal input, we are told in virtually all the Synod-on-Synodality literature, is a full and enthusiastic acceptance of all of the Modernist-tainted teachings of the Second Vatican Council—teachings that our current pope regards as something like super-dogmatically-infallible.
(Again) But—those of us who are old enough to remember will recall the Vatican’s public billing of the Second Vatican Council: it was to be a “pastoral” not a “dogmatic” Council’ For those of us who are not old enough to remember, there is the statement of Pope Paul VI delivered shortly after the close of the Council in 1965: “There are those who ask themselves what the authority, the theological qualification, that the [Second Vatican] Council wanted to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of 6 March 1964, repeated on 16 November 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility … .”
Just for the record, I am not a sedevacantist.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Pope Francis (apologies that I neglected to include his title). Similarly, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was Pope John XXIII from 1958 to 1963.
I think other comments below have dealt more fully with the question of the non-dogmatic character of the Vatican II pronouncements.
Pope Francis himself often refers to him as simply Franciscus or the bishop of Rome.
He seems to eschew customary honorifics and titles, so why are you so defensive about somebody calling him by what he calls himself?
I would like to see a dollar amount attached to this entire synodalmania enterprise. Just consider for a minute:
a. the salaries that were paid for all the time spent travelling to and attending these meetings;
b. the costs associated with feeding and lodging all the attendees;
c. the total costs of publicity and printing up synodal-related materials;
d. airfare and all associated travel costs for these attendees;
e. all the costs associated with surveys conducted at the diocesan level to give local ideas contributing to synodalmania.
I could go on with enumerating all the ways money was spent on this venture. It suffices to say that we are talking about millions of dollars. Now, the question is asked whether this expenditure of dollars in this regard satisfied the demands of charity and justice. If not, then a grave sin has been committed.
The cost was probably a fraction of what the clerical sex abuse scandals cost the entire Church around the world, in lawsuits, settlements, the loss of so many of the faithful, etc. That was the result of a Church that sees itself as a “perfect society” without need for dialogue with the laity (those on the base of the pyramid) nor with the world (there is no good to be found in the secular world), a Church that demands from you nothing more than that you pay, pray, and obey. The cynicism on this forum reveals a lack of imagination, and without imagination, nothing moves forward.
Thomas James: If it’s money spent that effectively enhances the mission of the Church which is to proclaim the Gospel, then it is money well-spent. If all it amounts to is all walks of Catholics and non-Catholics flapping their jaws with no furtherance of the Church’smission, then it’s a moral issue having to do with the stewardship of Church resources. I hope you can get the point this time.
Well, we could all take a trip to Rome for a week and visit the Trevi Fountain and the Spanish Steps and have some gelato, etc., and that would be money well spent, a nice vacation, but to include in that a period of dialogue and discussion would not suddenly make this an entire waste of time. At least these people can go away feeling like they’ve been given a voice, they’ve been listened to, that they are more than passive receptacles of clerical wisdom from on high, for they have unique life experiences and unique perspectives that need to be considered if we are interested in the larger picture. Most people on this forum don’t quite understand that, probably because of a very outdated epistemology and ecclesiology. Francis has the right idea. CWR has the wrong idea. What else is new?
Thomas James, you state: “Most people on this forum don’t quite understand that, probably because of a very outdated epistemology and ecclesiology. Francis has the right idea. CWR has the wrong idea. What else is new?”
So, my question to you is, “Why do you continue to frequent this site if you find it so wrong-headed?”
Thomas James: So the atheistic premise of Francis that truth changes is true, and the premise of Catholics who are actually Catholic that truth, because it is exclusively the reflection of the Mind of God and not in any way a creation of His creatures, have it all wrong?
Mr. James: “Everything is a call to a relationship…which will ultimately be fulfilled in the convivial sociality of differences, fully realized at the eschatological banquet prepared by God on his holy mountain…”
If you are concerned about child rape, does the thought occur to you that the above sort of synodal “discernment” is exactly the sort of twisted lie a child rapist rationalizes in his mind before he sets upon his quest to seduce a child?
Does the thought occur to you that the Church has proscriptions against evil because they have been given by God to stop us from telling ourselves the sort of lies that enable “new ways” of justifying our evil in the future?
Thomas James: Name one time by anyone the Church that always described itself as made up entirely of sinners ever described itself as a “perfect society?” And what does “dialogue,” which can only occur between two people, mean other than a cliché word for a monologue of cultural tyranny? And how would your implicit preferred voice of a pro-abortion, pro-sex revolution, pro-homosexual Catholic laity hope to correct the very intentions of God made clear in Catholic doctrine, for which Catholics of actual faith know we owe our obedience? And in spite of your mockery of an imagined Catholic religion with no answers, what is actually meant by this imaginary undefined term “forward” and what happens in that imaginary land of forward? Is there a different God who will accommodate our preferred evil in the land of forward?
Replying to Deacon Edward
Why do I continue to frequent the site? I check once in a while, not for my own edification, but to witness such crazy nonsense, to remind myself that there are still people in this country whose thinking is so backwards. Carl Olsen said that the commentators make up less than 1%, and he sort of implied that this small group is not representative of the entire readership. I hope he’s right, but I guess I’m intrigued by the thinking of this 1%.
For example, Edward Baker writes: “So the atheistic premise of Francis that truth changes is true, … “ That’s an amazing statement. The ignorance is breathtaking. There are two ways to consider truth: the definitional angle and the criteriological angle. The definition of truth is the conformity between what is in the mind and what is, and that, of course, is an idealization. But the criterion for truth are the parameters of cognitive systematicity (coherence, consistency, functional regularity, simplicity, etc.). Truth as such does not change, but rarely can I speak of “truth” as such, but only truth as I see it. Truth is difficult to achieve. “What is” (the real) is not always easy to apprehend, which is why my contentions must be tested. What does change is my apprehension of the truth. My truth claims change. New information allows me to see that what I once held as true is not quite what I thought it was, so I have made a revision. What I thought was the complete truth was really quite partial and fragmented. For example, Aristotle thought substantial form was the first act of a being. Aquinas was able to show that no, the act of existing is the first act, the act of all acts. It took a long time to get to that point and many factors had to be in place before he was able to see that. That’s just one example.
Another example of Conservative Catholic Crazy Sauce is the following: “Everything is a call to a relationship…which will ultimately be fulfilled in the convivial sociality of differences, fully realized at the eschatological banquet prepared by God on his holy mountain…”, which is a marvelous point. However, this beautiful insight is interpreted as a possible rationalization of child rape. Amazing!
That’s why I sometimes read the comments. Just to witness such absurdities. I’m also fascinated that half decent thinkers like Shaw and Chapp can become so distasteful and repulsive. Cynicism and arrogance destroy people’s gifts and they seem to be unaware of it, sort of like someone with bad body odor–only others seem to notice, unless of course the others smell the same way.
Thomas James: You state: “I check once in a while, not for my own edification, but to witness such crazy nonsense, to remind myself that there are still people in this country whose thinking is so backwards.”
Your explanation is perverse if nothing else. If I were you, I’d find a hobby to better use my time.
So you believe that the greeting card sentimentality, where good and evil thought will ultimately reconciled to become the same sort of thing, you cite as a “marvelous point.” And you cannot conceive of the delusional thought processes that occur in a sinful soul in denial of sin that leads them to believe their evil to be good or good to be evil as Scripture, including the words of Our Lord, warns us about hundreds of times?
You pretend to believe that you have a capacity to recognize intrinsic evil in the case of child rape (your original citation of offense). So when I cite how even the mind of child rapist can be actively involved in layers of deception where his belief about his perversion to be simply that he is a victim of a false social proscription, you see this as an example of “silly sauce?” And yet there is no “silly sauce” involved in your own thought to how capriciously you think about morality when you desire to be objective about it when it suits you or a relativist when it doesn’t? The real definition of hypocrisy is presupposing self-evident objective moral standards to objectively condemn the idea that there are such a thing as self-evident objective moral standards.
As far as your atheistic epistemology goes, you try to have it in two mutually exclusive ways as objective and subjective simultaneously. This implies God is an idiot Who tortures His creation with inadequate knowledge of right and wrong. It is not true that morality is obscure or that God, Who is not an idiot and cannot be an idiot deprived His creation a naturalistic understanding of right and wrong intuitively clear to an honest soul. The only problem occurs when a soul turns dishonest, like when a professed Catholic denies immutable truth, even if that soul is the highest of prelates. When we treat God as a fool, it is no different than denying His existence. Truth is never subjective, and moral truth is as accessible to those of low IQ and high IQ. And those of the past and those of the present have always had equal access. The Word is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Truth is not only not subjective. We cannot even possess truth. Since it is exclusively the reflection of the Mind of God, truth possesses us. But only when we are pure in heart.
No doubt money spent Synodaling could have been better spent, but don’t forget that money did eventually get into the wallets of the airline stewards, maintenance crews, pilots, hotel staff, limo drivers, cooks, cleanings staff, publishing houses’ employees, etc.
Yes, Mrs. Hess, that’s true but that’s still not the mission of the Church.
I do agree with that.
Charity and Justice requires that the hierarchy stop demanding money from the laity. If the Vatican has money for this kind of thing, then they’ve extracted way too much from the people.
I can pay the hotel clerks, limo drivers, and bartenders much more efficiently and with much less damage done to the Church.
And you would probably have a lot more fun Mrs. Hess on that vacation than the Synodalers.
🙂
Precisely, Mrs Hess. Someone is footing the bill for all these synodal expenses (although admittedly some participants pay out of their own pocket). But, fundamentally, whatever resouces are available to any one of us, we are accountable to God for its stewardship.
I can imagine the Prodigal Son making just such an argument while squandering his inheritance. I suppose it worked out well enough for the swine in that story.
Mrs. Hess, your appreciated thoughts came to mind when I read today’s piece by Lev over at The Catholic Thing. It pertains to the Vatican’s charging what amounts to admission fees for visitors to St. Peter’s.
This is close to the Broken Window Fallacy, the idea that bad events are actually fortunate, since people get paid to fix them.
Agreed, Deacon.
Synodaling gathers papal sycophants to make heresies on holiday.
Synodaling pretends to hear everyone except Christ, the Word of God.
Synodaling is a political convention, voting to enact a prearranged progressive platform.
Synodaling perverts the People of God into the god of the people.
Synodaling uses the authority of the hierarchy to destroy the authority of the hierarchy.
Synodaling is structured infidelity.
Synodaling says that sin is love.
Synodaling is Woke’s love child.
Synodaling is the backwash of liberté, égalité and fraternité – the Closing Ceremony of this pontificate.
From Vatican mum on cost of synodality synod (October 30, 2023 . 3:01 PM):
Excerpt:
The article begins:
The Vatican has not responded to questions regarding the expense it incurred to organize and host October’s synod of bishops on synodality, a month-long meeting of more than 400 people, held in the Vatican’s Paul VI Hall.
But sources have confirmed to The Pillar that many of the costs associated with the meeting will be be borne by bishops’ conferences and local dioceses around the world, and that the same is expected for an October 2024 meeting that will conclude the process.
[Later]:
Sources close to the synod estimate that the costs for the Vatican could easily amount to several hundred thousand euro for the month-long gathering.
In addition to securing the organizing staff for the meeting, the Vatican incurred the costs of developing documents ahead of the gathering, and of arranging the technology infrastructure that allowed delegates, and small groups working at tables, to have ready access to documents and other resources, to file their own reports, to propose amendments and changes, and ultimately, to make use of an encrypted voting system.
Okay.
In the interest of saying that 700,001 persons have contributed to the Dark Vatican’s Synodolatry process, here’s my own personal input for anyone who is listening or accompanying or dialoguing or synodaling via CWR tonight:
…Brapffffffffffffft!
Re: My post just above.
I’m not a theologian, so I’m forced to use the lexicon of laymen.
Dear brineyman, perhaps Synodaling is the theological form of the Tango?
Dear Fool —
You would think so.
Except that it only takes two to Tango.
While it takes fully 700,001 to Synodal.
(Sigh.)
Make that 700,002!
In the back bleachers, we read that Russell Shaw now discovers that “the process is the message,” something that already has been reported over the past few years.
And, is it really true that October Synod will be the “concluding session” when—BECAUSE “the process IS the product”—it has been reported that the process will never end? Haven’t we read that der Synodal Weg is more or less still in the big tent because there are hints of a continuous synod—but a synod that includes Rome rather than anything German-ically separate?
A MORE ORGANIC PROPOSAL:
A quarter of a century ago, Russell Shaw did much better in his book “Papal Primacy in the Third Millennium” (Our Sunday Visitor, 2000). There, he mentions Germain Grisez’s possibility of still-advisory [!] local synods built around archbishoprics (allied with other dioceses) and which, then, might “set up offices and structures similar to those of the present Roman Curia” but with a “thoroughgoing reorganization meant to avoid duplication” (p. 161). “Under this plan, the national conferences would not become more important but rather less; the more important regional structures would be groupings of archdioceses, which would elect members to the Synod [….] a proposal like this takes for granted the prior existence of an ideal state of affairs: a degree of harmony on essentials among bishops [as protected in Apostolos Suos, 1998?] and between bishops and the pope that may not now exist [….] This specific plan may not now be feasible and may never be. There is no doubt, however, that a better working relationship between primacy and collegiality is needed. So, therefore, are creative and responsible suggestions for bringing this about” (p. 162).
A SLOW-MOTION TRAIN WRECK?
But, today: (a) an amorphous, “walking together” and not-clearly-consultative Synod which, therefore, has been stretched into two sessions, with the first session making no decisions but whose non-decisions, in the second session or Synod on Synodality are now to be tied-off with recommendations for local action, and
(b) with both sessions seemingly demoted to a chorus role as they are upstaged by ten new “study groups” whose experts have inherited the (improperly vetted?) “hot-button themes,” particularly the now-confused roles of laity and ordained clergy, and between collaborative governance in some matters versus teaching by the successors of the Apostles as “sent” by Christ,
(d) with the experts unveiling their decisions six months after the more decorative Synods are faded memories (not unlike the Magisterium?), all with
(e) a unilateral and surprise 5,000 word side plate (Fidcucia Supplicans) enabling gradualist abdication to the invasive, secularist/homosexual subculture, followed by
(f) the out-of-step national bishops conferences being almost patronized as outlier “special cases.”
Presto! The center is the new periphery!
SUMMARY:
What does it mean, this goal of “ongoing conversion of the way of being [?] the Church” when councils or synods are still only what Church DOES, and never quite what the same sacramentally Eucharistic Church IS? Can the process ever really BE the message?
The need, at this very late date, for the synodal 1% and the other 99% (?) and even G.K. Chesterton’s “democracy of the dead,” to credibly discern “creative and responsible suggestions” for what might yet be—clearly consistent with the “real” and living Second Vatican Council and two of its deliberately distinct Documents (Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes)?
As an infamous guru of the political world once clarified: It all depends on what the meaning of is, is!
Quote “When the members of the Church allow themselves to be led by the Spirit of the Lord to horizons that they had not previously glimpsed, they experience immeasurable joy. In its beauty, humility, and simplicity, this is the ongoing conversion of the way of being the Church that the synodal process invites us to undertake.”
Strangely enough, this text sounds like some occult/Gnostic texts I have studied in the past. I mean the flavour and the spirit.
A flavour aside, it implies that “even your joy of a union with Our Lord in Holy Communion or mystical union is not a full joy; only if you jump into the New Communion of the Synodal Process then you will know…” To behold something “Not previously glimpsed” is a common promise of Gnosticism by the way. It is a very sophisticated Gnosticism because it is being packed in the inclusiveness “everyone must join in” while a normal Gnosticism is for the elect. Yet the spirit is very similar.
Quote “Everything is a call to a relationship…which will ultimately be fulfilled in the convivial sociality of differences,”
No. Not in “the convivial sociality of differences” (whatever it is) but in Christ, and not “everything” but only that which is compatible with Christ/can be transformed in Him. Our Lord is missing there of course.
It appears that ‘the synodal way’ is trying to swap a relationship of a believer with Christ and through Him with others (i.e. the true unity in Him Who holds everything in His hand) with “the convivial sociality of differences” i.e. “sugary-sweet-foggy-mutuality-of-whatever” based on mutual flattery and pretense of non-engaging with each other on a true level. Actually, it is exactly what I have encountered during the local ‘S of S’ sessions I attended. The participants were encouraged to listen to the foggy info (that is no concrete info but plentiful positive emotions) in silence, “surrender to the Spirit” and, most fundamentally, NEVER question or discuss what was given to them. Noteworthy, this sequence is contrary to how a normal human psyche works i.e. the info (lecture), questions, answers, discussions. This is how the truth is established: the wrong is rejected, the right is accepted. From here follows that the ‘S of S’ method was developed for the purpose of not exposing the false/evil, for the purpose of accepting all including the evil. Of course, this is contrary not just to a normal human psyche but to Our Lord as well. Here we can see why ‘S of S’ has nothing to do with Christ and this is why the documents it produces sound more like an occult than Christian. They oppose Christ in a covert way, via twisting a normal human way of thinking.
I will offer here what I understood about the spiritual forces in action on the ‘S of S’ sessions. The sessions begin with a so-called ‘synodal prayer’ which I refused to recite (praying ‘Jesus’ prayer’ instead). After that common prayer the info was given by the facilitator. It had almost no facts but plentiful emotions very similar to the “love bombing stage” in religious sects, how everything is going to be just great because everyone is here doing things together and because we have never experienced that before. What was that “everything” was never said yet later multiple “isn’t it great we are here?” probably implied that the process was great. It was maddening to observe people growing excited while listening to that nonsense. In my opinion, reciting a special prayer began the process on “bonding” which was later supported by a facilitator of positive “emotional injections”.
A facilitator always used “we” speaking on behalf of all. It is clear that the majority of people would not dare to argue because it was “not nice” since they became a part of the group already. This is how ‘S of S’ controls its participants. It is a very effective tool of anonymous/group soft control.
I believe that the above is precisely “a relationship” ‘S of S’ wants everyone to have. It is a fake of a relationship because any true relationship means not just pleasant emotions and extasy but also pain, painful change etc. Love is a sacrifice as well. Everyone who tries to love someone and to love Jesus Christ knows that it sets him for pain. Saints and mystics knew it and taught it – all that is against Christ must be burnt in the soul for the purpose of a mystical marriage with Him. We can come together in truth only via coming towards Christ, like radiuses towards the center of the circle, closer to Christ means closer to each other. ‘S of S’ offers a non-personal dummy, of a superficial “love” which really does not care, does not seek the true good of the other, a shell of a love. Clinical psychology defines it as “covert narcissism” – I am being nice to you = “love” you as long as you are being nice to me = “love” me.
I will conclude that I experienced local ‘S of S’ sessions as a very thick spiritual battle. I was propelled to challenge the prescribed “nice” scheme by asking questions and it had an effect of shaking people out of a trans-like state. I also witnessed a strange immunity to Christ of ‘S of S’ proponents. Such immunity is a well-known phenomenon among those who practice an occult (me as well, in the past) and it is stunning to observe it among many of Christians.
Well done, Anna! And, we recall that the bishops themselves were instructed in the Vademecum (“walaking together”) handbook for synodality to function “primarily as facilitators.” Why are we reminded of the catastrophic “Call to Action” of the mid-1970s? Been there, done that! As the great theologian Yogi Berra has said: “it’s deja vu all over again…
Instead of “I AM,” it’s only “I’m okay, you’re okay.”
Thank you. Your comments bring the Light of Christ to our conversation.
Excellent post, Anna. What you describe really reminds me of the methodology of Carl Rogers’ humanist psychology as depicted in The Emperor’s New Clothes, by William Kirk Kilpatrick.
In 1967 “Rogers and his colleagues at the Western Behavioral Science Institute were invited by the Immaculate Heart Order of nuns to revitalize their extensive school system in the Los Angeles area.”
The result?
“William Coulson, one of the project leaders later wrote: ‘When we started the project … there were six hundred nuns and fifty-nine schools: a college, eight high schools, and fifty elementary schools. Now, four years later as I write, a year following the formal completion of the project, there are two schools left and no nuns.'”
Let’s hope the Synod on Synodality does not follow a similar trajectory.
Now that’s real talk for the grown-ups, Anna!
I hope it doesn’t follow that trajectory also but the past decade has felt like a Carl Rogers led 1970s time warp.
I really like this explanation.
Our emotions are supposed to arise from a correct understanding of the present circumstances and ongoing reality, and what we really want. They are easily subverted by keeping people in ignorance (or willingly remaining in ignorance) and focusing on the emotion – so, not providing solid information and time to question, answer, and discuss is likely intentional. From what you said, S on S is designed to stimulate empathy while suppressing and ignoring the concrete means to unity that we have: One Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism.
Empathy without reason gives the leadership control of a large group of people who will do as ordered or suggested without thinking. It is very dangerous.
On the bright side, the solution is often simple: ask the people who are being controlled “why?” or “what exactly is this?”, until they are asking the questions themselves.
Synodology gets more similar to Scientology everything I hear it spoken about!!!! Oh for the halcyon days of JPll and Benedict!!!!!
I’m with Deacon Peitler above.
I have zero confidence that this is/was money well-spent.
It’s seems rather obvious that “the purpose” of “the synod process” is to have “a replacement church,” substituting self-worshipping queer-ideology bureaucrats, as “the-new-multi-headed-beast” in place of Christ.
Kumbaya.
“We are companions on the journey/eating bread and drinking wine…”
Now how could such profound lyrics possibly be regarded as theologically deficient?
The ongoing synod, I believe, is set up to transform the Catholic Church into a democratic institution where the majority decide everything including establishing new doctrines. It will become, no longer a church of Christ, but a church wherein majority rules.
But Jesus said, Fear not! Nothing can destroy the Church established by Christ. We just need to remain faithful until the end. Nothing happens without God permitting it. Everything will turn out according to His plan. Prayer of the faithful is very powerful.
Not going to happen, this is Christ’s Church we’re talking about!
No, it is not democracy. In democracy the contrary opinions are expressed and can clash openly. The system governs via an exclusion of a possibility of anything clashing. Nothing ever must be truly discussed because it is not nice to be “contradictory”. It is “upsetting” to question the validity of some statement and thus “not nice”. The word “nice” is the key. Everything and everyone must be “nice”.
I shared my experience of dealing with that system in my comment above. The scheme is:
1 – some “facilitator” or whoever nominated by someone above says “we want to achieve mutuality, inclusiveness”, whatever;
2 – plebes, being flattered that they are invited to participate in “something”, come and listen to a discourse about if we achieve inclusiveness all will be well;
3 – via various psychological methods, especially always speaking on behalf of ALL via using “we” and never “I” or “them” and showing how “everything will be great” if everyone agrees, the participants are coerced to agree and not to question the agenda (which is foggy beyond human comprehension anyway). The carrot is “a common good”, “for the good of others” (never for God’s sake). Everyone submits out of a fear to be perceived as “selfish, not nice”. If one plucks a courage to question, a part of a group which feels “empowered” by a facilitator’s discourse and is attracted by the promised “nicety” will put a covert pressure onto one who disagrees. If he presses on, he will be made feel ostracized in a covert but felt way;
4 – the agenda is always foggy, conveyed with extremely general words. This allows those who are above to change (by “above” I mean the net of soft control, from the local facilitators to the upper level) as the process goes.
The system utilizes the pathology of our fallen world, especially clearly manifested in a narcissistic spectrum, namely a desperate need to be praised and be viewed as “nice”. I am deliberately speaking of a spectrum only because even a totally healthy person has those features. We all desire to be accepted, to be perceived as good (not nice! – nice is superficial). For people along that spectrum however, to be perceived as “nice” is a matter of life and death (typically a result of an early attachment trauma). The true Church of Christ is supposed to heal such people, via helping them to become attached to Christ. The fake Church gives them a dummy instead of Christ, a promise of “approval”. This is a tragedy.
There is only one way of resistance: to sacrifice one’s own desire to be viewed as “nice” and to strive to be truly good, i.e. strive towards Christ (this by the way is a heroic action for those who were traumatized earlier in life). As soon as one begins examining “a nice Church” through the lens of Christ it begins cracking. Lies, manipulations, deception, silencing become apparent. I testify that as soon as I began challenging them (during the local sessions) asking very direct questions and referring to Jesus Christ, especially a relationship with Him as the most desirable thing in the world, “they” immediately revealed themselves. They cannot handle Christ. They do not get a relationship with Christ. If you do this you will be spat out but it is for your own good. You will be spat out together with Christ.
Pope Francis has said plainly on more than one occasion that synodality is NOT democracy. And his autocratic style of governing by Motu Proprio shows that he has no intention of ceding control.
Yes. But is it the issue.
Pope Francis may be supposing he is free to allow or even make people sin against the Son of Man on the premise of forgiveability; while supposing he may not allow for people sinning against the Holy Spirit on the premise of unforgiveability.
Then, does he have that right.
Very few Catholic laity are equipped to be there. I think they pick uneducated people who’s views they like. This is utter revolution. I reject it
In process, John Raymond, from go to whoa this “Synodality on Synodality” bears all the earmarks of careful stage management pitched at an audience of Orwell’s “Boxer” types in “Animal Farm”.
Anna’s analysis above discerns it as it really is – and as I have experienced it so far, especially in a Pneumatology effectively divorced from Christology.
Yes, we can position His Holiness as a moderating presence nixing ordination of women deacons … Whew. What a force for orthodoxy.
Russell Shaw however caught this elusive cat by the tail, it’s really a McLuhanesque process, the process the message. We’re led by the Spirit to the horizon where Earth and sky meet, to the realization of horizons never before glimpsed in which our longing for the other will be fulfilled.
Don’t you feel the magic? Keep walking together and talking and you’ll arrive.
“Rise, wake up, seek the wise and realize. The path is difficult to cross like the sharpened edge of the razor, so say the wise. The process gains liberation from the cycle of human suffering, birth, and death that the rest of the earthly mortals are subject to” (Somerset Maugham The Razor’s Edge).
Saint Irenaeus called it heresy.
The synodal ruse is an attempt to eradicate authentic Roman Catholicism. After sixty-five years of playing the post-conciliar attempt to reinvent the ecclesial wheel according to the notions of men have we yet to wake up to this theater of the absurd? The papacy is hurling to the ground from 60,000 feet and quite purposefully, the episcopate is a train wreck and the clerical and religious enterprises are thousand car pileup on the New Jersey Turnpike.
By their fruit you will know them.
We endure the likes of a Kamala Harris steering Christ’s Church into a bottomless pit with mercy, mercy, mercy and joy, joy, joy. Is it not time to trash the rose colored glasses and start behaving as adult Roman Catholics? Is it not long beyond time to tell the cast of “Hair” presently running things to withdraw their heads from the sixties and wake up?
They have not an iota of credence, yet the perennial Magisterium of the Church has more than sufficient credence to ensure a path to the Kingdom.
Quit wasting the dime of the hard working faithful who keep this show going and have a synod informed simply by the comments found in real Catholic journalism. The movers and shakers at the top might find they are regarded as nothing but talking heads fluffing up their inexhaustible egos at the expense of souls.
For me the obvious clue is in the name – A Synod on Synodality.
I do not understand the cries of distress that it is “a plot to further women priests”, nor the cries of distress from the opposite side “women priests are not on the agenda”
The topic is Synodality, and I expect that when Pope Francis responds to the final report it will be a discussion and decisions on how to implement synodality!
Furthermore I expect Pope Francis to be consistent in repeating what he has already said clearly on several occasions that it is not about ‘democratising’ the Church, he believes a decision taker, pastor in a parish, bishop in a diocese, … is responsible for the decision he takes after consulting widely. What he wants seems to be to ensure wide consultation becomes the norm (as it is within the Jesuits)
Given the atrocious mutilation the Society has provided the Church over the last seventy years and more the very last thing anyone would desire is a “wider consultation become the norm (as it is with the Jesuits).”
Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the Apostle Saint John. The cast of characters provided by the Society from Rahner and Berrigan to Martini and Bergoglio has proven tragically deficient.
Who exactly is investigating these unceasing promptings attributed to the Holy Spirit these days?
The Jesuit model of the Church you appear to favor is already in existence. It is a trainwreck. Madness it is to continue to pursue a path already proven catastrophic.
Chaos and catastrophe are a sure sign of the Adversary.
Implemented synodality? Meetings, meetings, and more meetings…
Anyone for Ockham’s Razor?
I think that after all is said and done, the whole gobbledygook will be packaged in a huge leather covered volume and left unopened only to be dust covered and forgotten. The next Papacy will go on as if never happened. The present lethargy is an indicator of its relative importance. Not to worry, mate!
God willing, good sir! I am afraid I can’t share your optimism. Who would have thought after John Paul II and Benedict it could come to what we shoulder today? I thought they were guiding the Barque, avoiding the iceberg. Instead it is upon us and there are no lifeboats.
Prayer is our lifejacket. The waters are frigid and the waves run high. Keep treading.
As if the revealed Word, from which all the truths that flow into the Mystical Body were insufficient in itself. That we must seek new horizons which had never been seen where Earth meets the heavens. A new Epiphany.
Shaw’s insight, What if the process that produced those sentences turns out to be the product?, his fear, is exact.
Pope Francis still hasn’t clarified if he is corrected on anything or which way he is leading the “synodal grouping” or anybody else, in those issues. Apparently there is such a thing as “synodal conversion” and it remains unclear if those questions cease to count when you have such a “conversion”, or if they are understood as of relative value.
‘ This is enough for us; he is enough for us. We do not want earthly glory; we do not want to make ourselves attractive in the eyes of the world, but to reach out to it with the consolation of the Gospel, to bear witness to God’s infinite love, in a better way and to everyone. Indeed, as Benedict XVI said, precisely when speaking to a synod assembly, “the question for us is this: God has spoken, he has truly broken the great silence, he has shown himself, but how can we communicate this reality to the people of today, so that it becomes salvation?” (Meditation, First General Congregation of the XIII Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 8 October 2012). This is the fundamental question. And this is the primary task of the Synod: to refocus our gaze on God, to be a church that looks mercifully at humanity. A Church that is united and fraternal, that listens and dialogues; a church that blesses and encourages, that helps those who seek the Lord, that lovingly stirs up the indifferent, that opens paths in order to draw people into the beauty of faith. A Church that has God at its center and, therefore, is not divided internally and is never harsh externally. This is how Jesus wants the church, his Bride, to be. ‘
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/10/04/pope-francis-homily-opening-mass-synod-246198
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fr-murray-popes-claim-that-every-religion-is-a-way-to-god-contradicts-christ-himself/
Holy Father can we lead the “indifferent” you identify there in the opening Mass, by indifferentism?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/bishop-strickland-pope-francis-comments-on-all-religions-being-paths-to-god-are-heresy/
Holy Father I firmly believe the following are not the purpose of VATICAN II, neither does the Council have or entail any such meanings; and these never comprise the business of the Church otherwise:
a) single global apostolate under the Pope with and/or without the College of Bishops
b) holding back the faithful in order to try to get some of the indifferent in the People of God and outside to respond
c) making the People of God into a singular spirit and spirituality and going at suitable common pace
d) throwing some together to get the right thing to collect and transmute for some and all, everyone else in waiting
e) trying to formulate as conversion what is not converted.
Maybe the Holy Father is too easily overtaken by the devil of the “Guantanamera nostalgics” who is sending him in the loops where the joys go haywire and become manic; kinds of joys to begin with not proper to priesthood. The Holy Father has to start to recognize the feelings for the “frantic” when they are coming around him.
To treat this whole episode as anything other than what it is, an attempt to steal the church, is no longer serious.
Synodality has been the basis of religious life since the time of St. Benedict. (See the rule of St. Benedict, Chap. 3, 1)
It is messy because it allows everyone to give their view of a situation. However, it has been found that the alternative to synodality is a top-down authoritarianism the too often reduces those who do not hold positions of leadership to “yes-men” who rubberstamp decisions handed down from above.
A claim that seems to need something to back it up. Where in the rule of St. Benedict does it say synodality? Was the rule subject to a vote every year? Did everyone work on making a new one?
As far as yes-men go, I see no evidence that the synod isn’t packed with them, as well.
In fact, that would seem to have been a requirement to participate.
pjf: Here is Chapter 3 of the Rule of St. Benedict. You can find many of the answers to your questions in reading it.
chapter 3. summoning the brothers for counsel
1As often as anything important is to be done in the monastery, the abbot shall call the whole community together and himself explain what the business is; 2and after hearing the advice of the brothers, let him ponder it and follow what he judges the wiser course. 3The reason why we have said all should be called for counsel is that the Lord often reveals what is better to the younger. 4The brothers, for their part, are to express their opinions with all humility, and not presume to defend their own views obstinately. 5The decision is rather the abbot’s to make, so that when he has determined what is more prudent, all may obey. 6Nevertheless, just as it is proper for disciples to obey their master, so it is becoming for the master on his part to settle everything with foresight and fairness.
7Accordingly in every instance, all are to follow the teaching of the rule, and no one shall rashly deviate from it. 8In the monastery no one is to follow his own heart’s desire, 9nor shall anyone presume to contend with his abbot defiantly, or outside the monastery. 10Should anyone presume to do so, let him be subjected to the discipline of the rule. 11Moreover, the abbot himself must fear God and keep the rule in everything he does; he can be sure beyond any doubt that he will have to give an account of all his judgment to God, the most just of judges.
12If less important business of the monastery is to be transacted, he shall take counsel with the seniors only, 13as it is written: Do everything with counsel and you will not be sorry afterward (Sir 32:24).
But, I don’t take that as being the same thing. There is no sense that the Holy Spirit is speaking through these meetings to bring revelation up from the roots as we are being asked to see in synodality. in other words, there’s a difference between “should we plant wheat or rye this year” or “should we observe grand silence from vespers instead of compline” on the one hand and “can we make women priests?” on the other.
pfj, Please see my reply to Deacon Edward Peitier. Thank you.
Good day Sr. and top of the morning.
May be a case of misplaced emphasis embellishing mis-begotten concept?
There are problems I know of that are not addressed, have not come up in the “convoking movement”, do not require a general convoking in order for them to be addressed and do not need any reference to the Rule of St. Benedict, the Jesuit charism(s) or self-exam, the Franciscan poverty, etc., for them to be recognized and have something done for them whether to mercy or to justice or conversion or dialogue.
The assertion that what will happen will necessarily be “exclusionary” if it didn’t come through “synodal”, is falsehood. Not the Church’s way.
Already explicated at length by others. Deja vu all over again and then some and you are obliged to have to wait for it continually so you can catch it when it comes around once more and the next time too? Reading thousands of pages?
Elias Galy, I am sorry but I don’t understand what your point is. Could you please explain it in a less elliptical style? Thank you.
Sr., you got a nice variety of responses and contestants.
Ellipsis is an important linguistics, rhetoric and literary device. Among other things it is for creating cohesion, helpful concision, sequence set-up and creative flourish.
Elliptical writing or oratory is not just so defective, in other words. Used well, it’s an enhancer. It can be used in an “opposite” way to break off communication; however I used it to channel good ideas. I make no apology for what I wrote. It fits with everything else I have been saying and here condenses an of index of contents without using a banal “list” style.
The “synodal synod” and its “synodal matter” is already outed by Tradition and VATICAN II. I believe Pope Francis got into this mess through his own fixity. Having to cover all this ground of sterility and then take it back to bishops in assembly for them to do the same thing is … what.
It seems to me.
1. Primate of Ireland proposes to make “authentic renewal” dependent on “addressing abuse crisis first” -see in the CRUX link. There is no such justice that would tie these two things together, or, up, as he does, in order for some good to find an introduction and gain a footing. No such mercy either. But in addition, that kind of aggregation-thinking and aggregated-formulary and aggregation-conditioning, is alien to the priesthood.
2. Jonathan Liedl gives further reckoning for other aggregations -see in the NC REGISTER link. Liedl’s headings do not necessarily merit so much attention let alone convention. Even for some issue that merits consideration, a “generalized universalist synodality” trying to invest the People of God what they do not have; for “concretizing” the subsistit in, while never getting at the meat of the matter, is all wrong.
1.
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-uk-and-ireland/2024/09/irish-archbishop-says-until-abuse-crisis-is-addressed-authentic-renewal-is-impossible-for-church
2.
“7 Ways That the Synod on Synodality Can (Still) Change the Church”
https://www.ncregister.com/news/synod-on-synodality-2024-preview
The conundrum is how to be collaborative in many things without junking the fact that, in others, the successors of the Apostles are “sent” by the incarnate Christ, and not reducible to “facilitators” from the current biological generation. In an age of slogans and emojis, distinctions matter, as affecting the significant details of institutional architecture (governance) and guardianship of received truth…
So, a Thought experiment, a Quote, and a Question:
FIRST, another oversimplification about all decisions (and about moral judgments) might be, for example, to say that the synodally facilitated promotion of ordained deaconesses (or even of non-ordained deaconesses as a gradualist strategy?) is partly explained by the Oedipus complex!
Under such a thought experiment, is the scientistic Freud the “sociological and scientific foundation” for overturning even sexual morality, itself, that a high-ranking cardinal alludes to, but has not identified? Coming from a long career in the secular/political realm, YOURS TRULY SURELY AGREES WITH YOU about “yes-men” (and women) who are quite content to rubber stamp or just move things along…whether from “above” as you observe–OR equally from below [!] as in any fluidly democratized “leadership” from behind?
So, as part of our inquiry into unhealthy or top-down/bottoms-up fatherhood within the Church, let’s take a look at possibly related disrupted fatherhood within families…
SECOND, “ROBESPIERRE was a key mover and shaker of the French Revolution [Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!] before it got totally out of hand and turned on him as well. His inadequate sense of fatherhood was probably shaped by his own out-of-wedlock birth. He was abandoned by his own father. The influential philosopher, Jean Jacques ROUSSEAU, trumpeted political [synodal?] equality while also abandoning his own illegitimate children to orphanages. Today the psychologist Paul Vitz researches such nihilists or atheists as Friedrich NIETZSCHE and our modern evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard DAWKINS. He finds that in neither case ‘do we find a strong, beloved father with a close relationship with his son or daughter.’ Even the atheist Sigmund FREUD [!] said that psychoanalysis ‘daily demonstrates to us how youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the father breaks down [fn. “Faith of our Fathers,” Ignatius, 1999]” (citation from Beaulieu, “A Generation Abandoned,” Hamilton Press, 2017).
QUESTION: So, about the Oedipus complex, what about a few homosexual or sympathetic bishops or priests in search of an “alternative” to male authoritarians? And–cut from the same cloth (so to speak)–what about the synodal half-blessing of symptomatic and invasive “irregular couples”—as couples…Is this just another top-down authoritarianism, now covered by synodal “leadership” from behind, BOTH?
Just a thought experiment! Hardly a “hot-button theme” for an eleventh expert study group.
Peter D. Beaulieu, Congratulations on your erudition! However, this is all very impressive and way over my head.
On the other hand, if you think that the psychological problems that appear in present discussions about synodality don’t exist in discussions among religious, then apparently you don’t think that religious, men and women, are human. We have all the weaknesses and foibles of the rest of humanity. This is why I said that synodality is messy. it is also where we offer to the Holy Spirit the opportunity to create unity. Please see the reports and articles of the recent Meeting at Nemi. https://www.carmelitaniscalzi.com/en/2024/05/05/international-meeting-of-ocd-nuns-nemi-italy-14th-to-20th-april-2024/
That was the perfect example of synodality. 60 women from all around the world met together with the friars to discuss how to update their constitutions. This involves going deeply into the meaning of our charism. From an original state of confusion, they arrived within 5 days to a striking agreement on how to proceed. I was closely involved in preparation and subsequent follow-up of the meeting.
From such an experience you will find it hard to convince me that synodality is contrary to the life of the Church and the action of the Holy Spirit.
God bless you.
One would like to think that anyone with a command of the Rule of Saint Benedict would have a grasp of the centrality of the virtue of humility. A game of one-upmanship surely belies that, and demonstrates the hubris operative in the reimagining of the Roman Catholic ethos. The faith is a gift from Jesus Christ, a vast tapestry, and those tugging at the threads are sadly deficient in the craft and demonstratively most often motivated by their personal quirks. The James Martin “apostolate” is by far not alone in providing proof of that. The passive-aggressive character of those intent upon recreating the faith in their own image and likeness need be called out for what it is — illegitimate.
The household concerns of monastics do not mirror the depth theological tangle which have taken the limelight at these gatherings in Rome. One should rightly desist from making such a comparison. The Mystical Body of Christ, deliberately deprived of accurate and comprehensive catechesis for well over a half century have either no say in what is transpiring or are being misrepresented by the carefully selected advocates for secular materialist principles. To refuse to acknowledge this context is dishonest.
I join my voice to yours on all points.
Thank you for the clarification: “On the other hand, if you think that the psychological problems that appear in present discussions about synodality don’t exist in discussions among religious, then apparently you don’t think that religious, men and women, are human.”
Maybe it’s less about psychological and even moral problems alone, and more about the affected institutional foundations?
Last time I heard, religious orders of nuns were all laypeople, while the workings of the whole Church additionally involve the totally unique dimension of the Apostolic Succession–demanding from bishops their institutional and personal guardianship of the Deposit of Faith.
By your remark, I am reminded, however, of a former pastor begging for my help. It was about the K-8 school in his Dominican parish, with a very capable school principal who happened to be a Providence nun (what?), and with a Montessori feeder school run by an equally capable Dominican nun. How was it that each recalled permission to run what had devolved into incompatible curricula and a personalized dispute, under the same roof?
Within the week, yours truly actually untangled this impasse, working fully with all parties, and to everyone’s 100% satisfaction. Along the way, the Providence nun also explained to me your appreciated point that life under vows and in the convent is potentially every bit as disrupted as in the less principled secular world. (This revelation reminded me of confined and stressed life on a Navy ship during an extended deployment!) So, yes, I actually do think that religious men and women are human!
All this was over fifty years ago, and I haven’t stopped learning. Meanwhile, the issue today within the Church is a grab-bag grievance(?)/ consultation(?)/governance(?)/
doctrinal(?)/ moral theology(?) process that even risks replacing the “hierarchical communion” (both) of the real Church (Lumen Gentium).
Still unanswered is how to DO synods without replacing the authorizing Council, or even forgetting what the perennial (not congregational) Catholic Church itself actually IS?
Sr. Gabriela: A Question: Is the Rule of Benedict authoritarian in your mind? Do Benedictines willingly submit themselves to be under the Rule? Or, is the Rule of Benedict mere suggestions? I’m curious what you think since you cite the Rule.
Deacon Edward Peiter, Thank you for your questions. I assume that you are a permanent deacon? That you exercise your ministry under a bishop and not as a member of a religious order? That would explain the questions that you ask. I have found that most diocesan priests and deacons have no experience of religious life and therefore that they do not understand it. That is natural since they don’t live it.
A member of a religious order professes vows and promises “according to the Rule and Constitutions.” These vows are binding and cannot be set aside except by a decree of the Dicastery for Consecrated Life, or according to the Constitutions. For a Carmelite, we profess our vows according to the Rule of St. Albert and the constitutions of our Order. For a Benedictine, they profess their vows according to the Rule of St. Benedict and the Constitutions of their institute. The Rule of St. Benedict is normative for all Benedictines and is to be obeyed. It cannot be changed. Any interpretation needs to be approved by the Dicastery for Consecrated Life.
Do they willingly submit themselves to their Rule? If they aren’t willing to do so, then they cannot be professed. If they are professed and it is found that they did not do so willingly, then their professions is invalid.
I think that answers your questions.
God bless you.
Sister Gabriela: One observation on my part – there is NO such thing as a ‘permanent deacon.’ There is ONE Order of Deacon, not two. If you try to justify this by saying the deacons on track to the Order of Presbyter take vows of celibacy, I would give two examples that belie this notion. First, a unmarried man who was ordained with me also had to vow the celibate state as part of his ordination rite. Second, a married (former Episcopal priest) who converted to the Catholic faith in my diocese was first ordained a Catholic deacon and then Catholic priest. This, in light of the fact that he was already married and was obviously not expected (nor able) to vow celibacy.
To refer to ‘permanent deacon’ is in my opinion a faulty understanding of the ordained clergy. Thanks, though, for your response to my question about the Rule of S. Benedict.
Since you consistently call yourself Deacon Edward Peitler and you have been commenting on CWR for quite a long time, I assumed that you were not delayed in your priestly ordination. Not that it matters to the point that I was making, which was that those who are not themselves members of a religious order rarely have a correct understanding of religious life. Thank you.
Sr. Gabriela. Any relation between synodality understood as the religious chapter and the Synod on Synodality is … since I don’t see the essential similarity in the chapter as limited discussion on rules and life within the community and the universal Synod that seeks paradigmatic enlightenment on revealed tradition. Perhaps change? If that’s the similarity, change in religious orders regarding the founder’s rules haven’t generally worked very well, noticing the decline in all the great religious order communities. Perhaps you can describe the benefits in terms of commitment to Christ as distinct from feeling the changes are personally suitable. Perhaps your response can help me better comprehend the benefit to the Church of the Synod. I won’t respond since my purpose is not to engage in argument.
Fr. Peter Morello PhD (I have only the initials of my religious order following my name. No academic ones. I hope that doesn’t invalidate my comments.)
I think that there is a misunderstanding of the synodal process that comes from looking at the comments of those who take part in it rather than the one who initiated it.
I suggest that you study synodality as practiced by the Jesuits in order to understand what Pope Francis has in mind. Then you can see how well or how badly his intentions are being carried out by the participants.
Thank you.
So true Sr. I am praying that this pontificate returns to Synods of Bishops. The problem isn’t Synodality. The problem is fidelity.
You, good sister, know that what is presently being displayed as synodal had no reference in the mind of Saint Benedict … nor more pertinently for you in the minds of Saint Albert of Jerusalem or Saint Teresa of Jesus. The cooperative effort within a monastic community to govern itself effectively, efficiently and with a mind for the spiritual and temporal welfare of all had and has nothing to do with doctrine.
The post-conciliar ruse to equate the ambitions of twentieth century Catholic theologians and clerics schooled in 19th century liberal protestantism with ancient Catholic tradition and the perspectives of our saints is deliberately misleading, and has contributed gravely to the chaos in the Church since the mid-century council.
You can’t fit a square peg into a round hole. It don’t work.
It is as well a deliberate deception to lift the term “synod” from the practice of the Eastern Orthodox to describe the endless enterprise on display in Rome. Our “synod” has no resemblance to the practice of the Eastern Orthodox. The use of the term is itself a deception to provide credence to deliberate deconstruction.
And we all know who germinates and thrives in chaos.
Please see my comment to Fr. Peter Morello. Thank you.
Any reputation for excellence and virtue that the Society presently enjoys is rendered from the gravely misinformed and can only be termed today as stolen valor. The spirit of Saint Ignatius and his saintly companions which established the Society is long abandoned. They would not remotely recognize their labors in the entity ascribed to them. Luke 18:8 comes to mind “…when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
Actually, James, if one reads ‘Spiritual Exercises’ of St Ignatius one will see that the author has one purpose only: to bring souls into the orbit of Christ. The whole method is about aiding people to come to a passionate relationship with Him. Same can be said of St Teresa of Jesus and St John of the Cross – their reform was not about “going to the roots” for the roots’ sake but about providing souls with a sure method of coming to a union with Christ. They knew Our Lord intimately and wanted everyone to know Him. He was the centre of their lives, writings and other activities; this is why they produced so much fruit. The same is true about any saint or a mystic.
The same principal was at work with the Russian Orthodox Church Council during and immediately after the 1917 revolution. It was gathered to work out the ways of life in the face of procession when so many were martyred hence the Church. That was done for the purpose of not leaving the faithful without the shepherds and preserving the functional Church. They knew why they were gathering and risking their lives. There were laity and monastics as well.
There is a very simple way to differentiate a true endeavor (which comes from God) from a fake: the true one always seeks Christ and a union with Him and is surrendered to Him. Those who do true godly things are always Christ-centered, those who do fakes are self-centered (nowadays in a covert way so it can be hard to discern, often under a mask of a false humility).
Christ is the only measure.
“nothing to do with doctrine” you are right, of course it does not. But there is nothing to suggest that ‘synodality’ has, in the mind of Pope Francis, anything to do with doctrine.
The obvious problem with extending the system of consultation which has existed among religious for 1500 years is that they have stable communities, whereas parishes and dioceses are only geographic entities without a clearly identifiable membership.
To suggest that the Bergoglian enterprise presently underway has nothing to do with doctrine is patently absurd. You are either deliberately uninformed, purposefully self-deceived, or scandalously unaware assuredly of the last eleven years — let alone of the last sixty-five when a pattern of deceit has been operative amongst those intent upon the deconstruction of Roman Catholicism with a not concealed smirk, wink and a nod.
Community and synodality are not the same thing, and yor posts are manipulative and dishonest. Benedict would be turning over in his grave about what Francis is proposing and supporting. There is no legitimate comparison here.
Synodaling gathers papal sycophants to discuss heresies on holiday.
Synodaling is not about the Word of God.
Synodaling is a political convention, voting to enact a prearranged progressive platform.
Synodaling perverts the People of God into the god of the people.
Synodaling uses the authority of the hierarchy to destroy the authority of the hierarchy.
Synodaling is structured infidelity.
Synodaling speaks of sin as love.
Synodaling is not a Synod of Bishops.
Thank you – for bringing to attention , esp. the last paragraph – ‘everything in the world is connected.. call for a relationship …led by The Spirit …’ – a wonderful blessing from the Heart of The Father that had allowed our First Parents to walk with God till they chose something else …Salvation history as efforts of ongoing efforts to open the closed hearts and ears of the children -having foreseen The Woman who was to undo the divides, its loss of peace and order ..
https://divinemercyplus.org/videos/those-who-created-conflicts-and-divisions
Good meditation and prayers above for holy souls who are interceding for us as we intercede for them…the need to create peace by creating order and justice in charity by heeding The Father in responding to the cry of many including the tortured unborn the poor , creation itself , its effects afflicting the parents , families and nations as loss of trust in goodness of God and in each other in hardness of hearts manifesting in wars and hatreds towards The Church and God …illnesses of body , mind and soul …intentions of the Holy Father to use The Synodal occasion as a mission to deepen the desires in hearts to walk with God in His Spirit…efforts of those who have heeded the call – given to The Mother , to perfect the prayers and efforts of all to bring forth ongoing good fruits… as oneness in families being in adoration, even when a working parent has to leave a little one in the care of others , memories of such being brought again and again unto the Holy Fmly in adoration in their walks together …to help bring forth trust and healing and its peace to pervade in many realms – in young people trusting that their walks in the trials in vocations and family life can be enriched in walking together with generations in The Spirit as the reign of the Divine Will ..FIAT !
The people posting pro-synodal views need to have a refresher course on the Great Commission:
*
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
*
Most of the synodal views appear to imply that Christ was lying when He said that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” and when He said “I am with you always, to the close of the age.” The entirety of the Church is subordinate to Christ, the Bridegroom. During the Bible passage where St. Peter was called the rock it was for the purpose of building Christ’s Church, not St. Peter’s. When St. Peter was undergoing restoration after his denial Christ was giving commands to St. Peter. Christ exercised His authority in His messages to the seven churches in Revelation. The one to the church at Laodiceia is very blunt. Christ also made it plain that we were to be a teaching church, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” There was to be a unity between teachings and practice. Any attempt to separate teachings and practice is contrary what Christ’s direct command is. Christ’s New and Everlasting Covenant has no expiration date. The Eucharist is the living embodiment of this Covenant. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is Christ with us always.
*
In First Corinthians St. Paul was very clear to distinguish between worldly wisdom and the wisdom that comes from God, the unspiritual and the spiritual man. There were those who thought that their knowledge that the pagan gods were false gave them permission to eat the meat offered to idols, even though the Council of Jerusalem said otherwise. The “spirit of Jerusalem” in action. St. Paul said the knowledge puffs up, but that love builds up and the dangers of bad example. The synod looks like it has plenty of people with puffed up worldly knowledge who care little about what kind of example they give to others.
Despite a worthy set of principles expressed by Francis I in his Address for the Opening of the Synod it would be incompetent at best and disingenuous at worst to assume His Holiness is disconnected with those who are engaged in its operations. And appeal to the Jesuit Christocentric idea of communal consult or synod as his intent is equally so. Needless to say but it must be said when facts, such as Pope Francis’ appointment as Relator General Cardinal Hollerich, known for his approbation of adult homosexual relations, desire to change the Catechism on behalf of same sex relations, and Cardinal Grech as Secretary General of the Synod, who envisions a Rainbow Church, which “According to the cardinal, the primary goal of Pope Francis in the synodal process is the reshaping of the Church beyond his reign, and creating a space for mutual discernment of the Holy Spirit between the hierarchy and other, more marginal voices” [Corriere del Ticino] – are disregarded. How does the appointment of “marginal voices” as equal to ordained hierarchy, as authoritative within Church governance fit with its institutional Founder Jesus Christ? How does one square reduction of the duties of our Apostolic successors and defenders of the faith, our bishops, to menial secretaries and facilitators absent of their voice?
One is obliged to express one’s concerns.
The names/words “Basil” and “Bazil” and “Bazilon” and their equivalents are trip words among lodge boys. At least where I live.
I have seen it in action with them.
How it would come together in a “synod on synodality” in “everyone’s language” would be the Holy Spirit -if something is amiss?
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2023/october/documents/20231004-apertura-sinodo.html
I had mentioned “Basil” in CWR (I think for the first time) in a discussion with “Brian Young”, October 15/16/17, 2022, in Dr. Staudt’s Two Cities article in the link. Brian Young wanted to find a Scripture for everything and was trying to get me to help him achieve it.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/10/13/two-cities-how-catholics-ought-to-approach-politics/
Statements by St. Basil in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that bear directly on today’s reasoning and other difficulties – the only ones of his in the CCC:
CCC 336, 1828, 2384, 736, 2684, 2132.
Why is Pope Francis denying the inspiration and ststutes of the founder of Opus Dei while proclaiming a name for diversity?
‘ The world is made up of many different realities that are diverse precisely so that they can assist and complete each other. When they are harmonized, all generations, peoples, and differences can reveal the wonderful splendor of humanity and Creation. ‘
https://x.com/Pontifex/status/1838179002499866773
Sr. Gabriela of the Incarnation, it is a breath of needed fresh air to read your posts. You have a lot of endurance to put up with all that, and a lot of patience. But I really enjoyed it, knowing that there are some voices of reason out there.
Reason or rationalization?
Reason or rationalization?