Where Peter is , Mike Lewis, has a brief article on the circus, as he calls it, that is the synod on the synod and its current document. He quotes Austin Ivereigh who lets us know that even in the committee writing the synthesis, that there is incredulous shock over what is being suggested by less than 1% of those who responded. Of course, Austin is self righteous and condescending toward these his fellow committee members.
Keep in mind, that some of that less than 1% who were polled are not practicing Catholics, former Catholics and non Catholics and non believers. Incredible to say the least and to call this a good sample of Catholics throughout the world. In fact it is shocking. Those who are “orthodox” though, as the blogger says, who he describes as ideological and “rigid” like our pope describes them, will walk away sad, but those who are gnostic about new teachings only revealed to them and a small group of elite “Catholics” will be happy that the Holy Spirit is working through them. These seems to me to be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, no?
But here is the money byte from “Where Peter is” blog and blogger, Mike Lewis, quoting Austin Ivereigh’s incredible self-righteousness and condescension toward people who are sound and not insane when it comes to the Church:
Our friend Austen Ivereigh was among the members of the drafting committee who met in Frascati, Italy, to synthesize reports from around the world to create this document. He has a reflection in America about the experience. He writes about the importance that the document reflect the voices of the People of God, and the need to avoid giving into the temptation to theologize or make abstract the concrete words of the people of God:
The temptation to theologize, as if what the people had said could not be allowed simply to stand, was ever present in Frascati, an understandable resistance among highly competent and educated people to the humility our synthesizing demanded of us.
In the groups, I experienced the temptation as a kind of dead weight of dullness and banality, and I found it frustrating. Just let the people speak! This became my prayer and my hope for the document. Cardinal Grech and Father Costa were aware of the temptation, too, and went out to meet it. “We have been summoned here with the task of listening to the people of God,” Cardinal Grech reminded us. “If in our synthesis we do not represent what the people of God are trying to say, then we have failed.”
The message landed. The final document stays rooted in the people. But having experienced the temptation in our groups, I became aware of how hard it is, in synodal processes, to really listen to the people, especially for those of us accustomed to analyzing and opining.
There will certainly be much more dialogue, tension, and conflict in the Church over the next two years of this process. This document, remember, is a synthesis of what Catholics would like to see addressed. But there are many disagreements about how these issues should be addressed. Here comes everybody and all that. And plenty of people, especially those with ideologies and rigid agendas will walk away sad. Others will sense the Holy Spirit at work, experience conversion, and be renewed. Some will finally feel listened to. Hopefully the Church will benefit from this grand experiment. Ultimately it will fall to the Successor of Peter to discern what God is asking of the Church when the circus finally ends.
15 comments:
Here's what Jeffery Mirus over at "Catholic Culture" has to say about the Church's enemies having a say in what the Church does and teaches: Inclusion/exclusion or mission? No organization with a purpose can afford to be in the business of the inclusion of those who reject its purpose. No organization with an identity can afford to include those who reject that identity. And no organization with a Divine commission can afford to include those who deny that commission. The contrary is a load of rhetorical codswallop which serves as a mask for the desire to change the organization to accommodate those who do not accept the purposes for which it was constituted. --Jeffery Mirus
The Synods are designed to finish the job Vatican Disaster II started - turning the Church into some Globalist NGO run by the left
Christ freely offered himself up to suffering his Passion and Death and this in atonement and reparation for the sin of Adam and the sins of all mankind. Only in the Son of God, the unblemished lamb", becoming man could this be accomplished, and the break in man's relationship with God be repaired and restored.
It was the desire of God that man would be able to share Eternal life with him and share in all his blessings. This sacrificial act of atonement of Jesus Christ was of such merit and value that it filled the Divine Treasury beyond all measure with grace which is a gift that can only come from God. It opened the gates of Heaven for us, and through this unequaled sacrificial offering of the Son of God, by means of the Holy and efficacious Sacraments, it provides us with the means to receive the forgiveness of sin as well as conferring grace.
What is seen in a wrong and mistaken understanding of Christ's Passion and Death (in Protestants and others lacking a Catholic understanding) is that there is no need for corporal or spiritual works, nor the need for penance, nor the necessity of purgatory, nor recognition of mortal and venial sin, nor a proper understanding of what is and is not sinful. It seems like some of this erroneous understanding has taken hold of some members of our Church.
The Catholic understanding of Christ's Passion and Death conforms to the Sacramental nature of our Church, the Sacraments being means of receiving forgiveness for our sins and conferring grace. A Catholic's faithful and proper understanding of the Truth which God has revealed through his Holy Spirit, by way of Scripture and Magisterial teaching, must always be seen in the light of what has been infallibly taught by the Church from the very beginning,and this being revealed to us by God can never be changed.
If the people already know what they want to be taught, then what need do they have of teaching? It sounds as if the people sampled want some sort of validation of their ways even if they diverge from Church teaching. There seems to be a significant, perhaps overwhelming, number of clergy and Church leadership who yearn for the same permissive validation but cannot find it in God’s teaching so are putting it to a vote. This Magna Carta approach satisfies their emotional desires but inverts that historical event to codify perversion rather than liberate us from it.
"THE LEFT LEANING “ULTRAMONTANE” BLOG..."
"Ultramontane"...translation: Mike Lewis of WPI believes in the Church's teachings in regard to the Papacy.
During the past couple of years, I have exchanged with Mike numerous messages via his twitter page. On certain issues, Mike is "liberal" in the same orthodox manner in which our holy Popes have been "liberal."
His blog, as well as twitter page, have blessed me.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Francis' fan-fiction writers cannot help but be self-righteous and condescending towards those they disagree with--we constantly see that in the endless obsequious, verbose kowtowing to the regime that appears from one of the readers of THIS blog. Denying reality--denying the obvious--demands it.
This precisely why the likes of Liz Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Blaise Cupich, Nicole Wallace, Mark Ruffalo and even Jorge Bergoglio have all mastered speaking in "that tone". It is a tone of smugness, sanctimoniousness, self-righteousness, condescension and intolerance. It is a tone that always, with infallible consistency condemns their opponents of the very things that they themselves do or are.
How to deal with this? Ignore the first impulse, which is anger. Forget the second impulse, to argue. There is no argument when one's mind is already made up and locked shut. The only way to deal with it is to cautiously let them blow all their hot air away.
The geriatric ecclesiastical mafia is stuffing this bullsh_t synod down our throats (or at least TRYING to) because they are angry. They are angry because the majority of Catholics for the last 15 years or so have increasingly treated the Second Vatican Council as irrelevant. They can't abide THAT! It's one thing to disagree, but dictators and narcissists absolutely PANIC when they realize that no one cares about them or their pet projects. The "great revolution" they tried to impose with their failed Novus Ordo nonsense has borne its fruit and many Catholics--at least the practicing variety, especially YOUNGER Catholics have moved on. The next important step we can take is to make the Synod as irrelevant as Vatican II and treat it as such. Their fantasy is crumbling. Their desperation to "win" over the Church with this silliness only proves that they have already lost.
Jerome Merwick,
Nice summary of our present situation. The Novus Ordo is kind of like bad food being served at a restaurant and instead of fixing the situation the manager insists “you will like it!”
What torques me off are people like MT who have zero perspective. Unlike him, I was trained under the TLM, had a Liber Usualis yet when the “reforms” arrived I actually gave the Novus Ordo 40 years of my life, Sunday after Sunday, in music ministry as an organist, cantor, and choir member. I have first hand experience of watching the decline and loss of belief. I admire priests like Fathers McDonald and Fox who are trying to salvage a bad situation while loathing priests who are comfortable with the Big Failure. You can’t fix stupid.
Mike Lewis here... Believe it or not, I actually had liberal ideologues in mind when I wrote the line you highlighted about "walking away sad."
I think those who go into the synod with the idea that it will change the Church's doctrine on sexuality, contraception, or women priests (for example) are going to be quite disappointed. I think the synod is a good opportunity to bring the Church together and to understand the concerns of our fellow Catholics and to help the Church to understand the perspectives of different people, so we can better respond to each other.
To: Mister Mike Lewis:
Mister Lewis, during the past two years that I have read WPI/as well as your twitter page, I thank you for your having blessed me abundantly.
Despite the extreme right-wing attacks against you...the Satanic hatred that said folks have directed at you...you have never wavered in your defense and promotion of Holy Mother Church/Her holy Papacy.
Mister Lewis, thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mike, thank you for your comment. But your comment is in fact what the problem is. The synodal process is becoming like politics in our country and elsewhere. We now have political lobbies throughout the Church to include both the laity and clergy, each pushing their version of Catholicism, as though in the various political parties there are in the secular world. In this context you have winners and losers. Some are happy when they and their platform win and others walk away unhappy.
No matter how much Pope Francis touts that this isn’t a legislative maneuver, we all can see and hear from His Holiness and those he has selected to organize the synod that it very much is. And so much of it is not based on Scripture, Tradition or the perennial magisterium of the Church but on feelings. It kind of proves the old caricature of liberals being “bleeding hearts” and that is what motivates them to seek change.
I have already used the example of Pope St. Paul VI who had a committee of various clergy and laity advise him on Humanae Vitae and that this group was open to change and the allowance of some forms of artificial contraception. Thus the pope himself opened up the possibility that a change would occur and when he didn’t change it the losers, for the most part, left the Church in 1968 or ignored the teaching altogether. Those who did leave, took their children too, thus we have generations of Catholics or former Catholics caused by a committee that raised the hopes of some only to have it slapped down by the pope. That caused the polarization.
What we are seeing now is a monstrous form of committee thing and seeking the “lowest common denominator.” It seems to me that Pope Francis is in favor of much of the progressive thinking of Germany and others throughout the world. If he goes that rout, we will continue to bleed Catholics who will leave the Church says, to either become schismatic or non practicing or simply nones.
If the progressive ideology that we are seeing, much of it generated by the homosexual or LGBTQ++++ lobbies in the Church who manipulate others by playing their violins loudly, wins, the Church will lose just like all of liberal Protestantism has lost members. The Anglican Communion is the poster child for this because in so many ways, we can see in them, who are similar to us, what will happen to the Church of politics and its methods.
Most Catholics favor a pastoral Church. I have always seen myself as a liberal pastorally, but a conservative, orthodox or traditionalist when it comes to Scripture, Tradition and natural law. Applying that is not a science but an art. The application of a pastoral theology cannot become doctrine, much less dogma.
Mike,
You sound like a man of good will, but our current Pope is not. He allows apostasy while shafting loyal and faithful Catholics. That is why the sentient amongst us view the Synods as a distraction at best, and a farce at worst. These Synods are the last gasp of the Doubleknit Dinosaurs
Responding to several comments here...
1) Thank you, Mark.
2) Father, I do not deny that certain people hold a political vision of the Church. (And it goes without saying that when we look at history, that has long been the case.) But we also need to look at what's happening in Catholicism in the West. Fewer people are even bothering to argue within the Church about doctrine. They're simply leaving and never coming back. If we look at the demographics in the West, JP2 couldn't stop it, Benedict couldn't stop it, Francis hasn't stopped it.
It's no longer that teenagers drift away and then start going to Mass again when they are married with children. They are leaving for good. And there's nothing to say that the Church in places like Africa will follow suit when secularism begins to rise there.
Francis, of course, understands this. There are still people (albeit many fewer than before) who still feel an attachment to the Church but are torn, because there are parts of the Church that they love, but other parts they can't accept (at least right now). The synod is an opportunity to invite them back in so that they can voice their concerns, questions, doubts, and grievances. Maybe we haven't always been great in our responses to them. Laying down the hammer and telling them the doctrine is settled (as so many bloggers and writers apparently want to do) isn't going to help.
Perhaps you think it's better to insist on people's doctrinal purity before welcoming them. But I don't and Pope Francis doesn't.
3) TJM, if I didn't firmly believe Pope Francis had good will, I wouldn't support him. I have read almost everything he's written as pope and I don't think anyone who knows his writing, speaking, and teaching intimately can say that. I disagree with you, and I think your charge is unsubstantiated, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Mike,
Just read his ill tempered remarks about tradition minded Catholics. For example, calling young priests who choose to wear the cassock are rigid. Even Father McDonald has highlighted his intemperate remarks here. His repudiation of Summorum Pontificum is just more evidence of his bad will. Moreover it is ultra vires. Also I recall him questioning whether President Trump was Christian while slobbering over fake Catholics abortion droolers like Biden and Pelosi. You must not read everything he says.
Good Heavens, now we're stuck with two Marks.
Jerome Merwick,
Yes, two folks unhinged from reality is a bit much.
Post a Comment