This was included in the just released Vatican summary, thus far of the synodal process. The photo above is from the Crux’s report on it showing the Vatican in a fog, an apt depiction of the Vatican and papacy today:
The inability for some, such as divorced and remarried couples and those in a polygamous marriage, to receive the sacraments was also highlighted as a concern.
My comments first, then press title below my comments for the Crux article. And yes, I believe we are being gaslighted!
Vatican II, for the first time for generations of Catholics, opened the door to change in the Church, which most clergy and laity thought could not happen even if they desired it. Many, it turns out, did desire change and a lot of it, even those fully aware of the teachings of the Church as presented prior to Vatican II.
However, Pope St. Paul VI realized at a certain point by 1968 that not all things were up for change. We were told at that time that discipline can change, human laws can change in the Church but not doctrine, certainly not dogma and not moral teachings.
But the huge mistake that Pope St. Paul VI made as he decided to write Humanae Vitae, is that he consulted with a committee of people both lay, religious and clergy to help him write the document. This committee was open to artificial contraception and that was leaked to the public. Thus, in this era of radical change in the Church and culture, it was fully expected that the pope would change the teaching of the Church on natural law and artificial contraception.
Everything was changing, so why not that! When the pope upheld the traditional teaching of the Church on human sexuality, there was a great polarization and rebellion and many left the Church over it and we are still suffering from it today. This issue was greater than liturgical changes because it was so personal.
Pope Francis is making the same terrible mistake, but this time on steroids, with the synodal process. He is opening up a sense that everything in the Church can change and eventually he or another pope will have to crush this hostile take over of the Church by the devil. Will this pope have the gonads to do so or will he resign and make a way for another pope to restore some orthodox sanity to coloring book Catholics and Catholic snowflakes?
Here is a summary of the Synodal Process just put out by the Vatican. Talk about garbage! This is from Crux on Thursday morning:
New synod doc highlights challenges, but offers few solutions
Though notoriously difficult to define, “synodality” is generally understood to refer to a collaborative and consultative style of management in which all members, clerical and lay, participate in making decisions about the church’s life and mission.
(And even Crux, points out the “gaslighting” effect of what is happening to Catholics today from the Vatican:)
The continental stage document published Thursday gave an overall positive review of the synod process thus far, saying participation globally “exceeded all expectations,” despite the abysmally low participation rates, especially in western nations.
READ THE REST AT CRUX BY PRESSING THE ARTICLE’S TITLE ABOVE and PRESS THE TITLE BELOW FOR THE VATICAN’S REPORT ON THIS REPORT, JUST STUNNING:
20 comments:
Are the Synods including the voices of TLM going, faithful Catholics?
Pablem... Hoostin, we have a problim!
FRMJK EXACTLY!!!!!
I witnessed personally the difference in teaching in the pre and post Conciliar years and it was dramatic. Following the Council it was all about love and feelings - Faith and Reason went out the window. Although the Baltimore Catechism had its limitations, at least it provided a common vocabulary we could use. An average second grader back in those days knew far more about Church teachings than the average adult now does.
This Vatican missive is poorly scripted and chaotic; it does, all the same, lead to only one conclusion: the salvation of souls is no longer the Church's mission. If there is no sin, there's no need for redemption. You're okay and I'm okay and there's no such place as hell so eat, drink, and be merry. Why, oh why did the Almighty send his only begotten son into our world to be brutalized, tortured, and killed? If there is no such thing as sin or hell, then God's a monster.
This indeed is the 1970’s on steroids. We’ve gone back in time to one of the worst periods of Church history. The only consolation is that this survey, and that is what it is, is from 1% of Catholics worldwide, maybe even less. What is the worry, is that like the pope’s clamp down on the TLM came from consulting world bishops, with less than 1% having negative feelings about it, the pope clamped down. So we know what the conclusion of this will be even before it happens and the synodal process in Germany will be hailed as the model for a more nationalistic form of Catholicism. However it will no longer be catholic.
Our only hope, apart from God’s direct intervention, is that wild card that the God of surprises has kept going all these years, and that wild card? Pope Emeritus I….
I feel Fr. McDonald the only recourse is continue with the status-quo if you're in a solid diocese. I can't say anything I have observed has changed in the Kansas City area beyond some listening sessions for the synod happening in a handful of parishes. My assistant pastor will be offering the traditional Latin Mass for All Souls Day again at my diocesan parish so TC hasn't had much of an impact. In the end, the truth will prevail.
Father McDonald,
I think maybe your colleague's misspelled missive was a deliberate attempt to point out that there was a misspelled word in your headline: "Pablem" should be spelled "Pablum". (I have also seen it spelled "pabulum")
One could hardly blame you for misspelling this word, because it is pretty obscure and hardly used at all any more. The only reason I am even remotely familiar with it was from my experience of watching the Morton Downey Jr. Show when he would call his opponents, "Pablum-puking liberals". I still laugh when I picture that terrible show.
I know that my spellcheck did not catch the mistake. As my personal secretary, I rely too much on her editing abilities. My comment to FRMJK was a bit of Italian sarcasm.
Of course the big tent of the church includes those who make up their own rules about spelling. To each his own truth.
In regard to tHe Church in the United States:
The USCCB last month issued the National Synthesis of the People of God in the United States of America for the Diocesan Phase of the 2021-2023 Synod.
The USCCB report declared in positive fashion:
"Throughout all the synodal consultations, the People of God have continually shared their expressions of joy and gratitude for the invitation to journey together on the synodal path.
"These spiritual conversations and fraternal dialogues have renewed a sense of common love and responsibility for the good of our Church — in our parishes, in our dioceses, and in our country.
"Listening brings forth the impetus toward healing our enduring wounds, and enhancing our healthy communion and participation, which is vital for living out our mission.
"This synthesis, as well as the syntheses generated on the local level, are an invitation to ongoing attentive listening, respectful encounter, and prayerful discernment."
===================================================================================
The Holy Ghost has/will guide the Synod/Synodal process. One diocese after another within the United States has praised the Synodal process.
The Pope will issue the final teaching document. Therefore, thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, said Papal document will, in orthodox fashion, teach, govern, and sanctity the Holy People of God.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
The Ghost of Joseph Goebbels wrote that utter garbage or maybe Baghdad Bob.
When you mature, you will see things very differently and will deeply regret having posted the statements that you do. It will be a Cardinal Innitzer moment as portrayed in The Cardinal
Mark Thomas,
You never commented on the European Cardinal wanting to bless gay "unions" and PF's lack of a response. Is this guided by the Holy Spirit? So the Holy Spirit is rejecting Biblical prohibitions now? Do you think, at all?
William:
Thank you for your thought-provoking question. Now, I am certainly no expert in theology but sometimes I wonder about the reason Pope Francis chose the name Francis and whether it has anything to do with what I understand to be the Franciscan attitude toward the “penal substitutionary atonement theory.” The following will give a sense (read the entire week’s entries to get a full sense):
https://cac.org/daily-meditations/jesus-and-the-cross-weekly-summary-2019-02-09/
I very much hope that our resident priests will comment and give us further guidance about these matters.
Mark Thomas,
Still looking for cut and paste material to respond to me? Instead, why not try using your power of reason?
Mark:
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(substitutionary) 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.
I've read that there is general agreement among scholars that *no* writer in the Early Church taught penal substitution as their primary theory of atonement.
Also:
"If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment…. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin."
Thomas Aquinas
George:
Thank you for your response. It is most interesting to delve into these matters. The footnote in the entry for Sunday in the link I gave describes the history this way:
“This week I will use the phrase “substitutionary atonement” to indicate the most current version of the theory. Throughout Christian history, there have been multiple theories of substitutionary atonement. One of the earliest, the ransom theory, originated with Origen and the early church. Closely related to this was the Christus Victor theory. The ransom view of atonement was the dominant theory until the publication of Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo? (Why Did God Become Human?) at the end of the 11th century. Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement then became dominant until the Reformed tradition introduced penal substitution in the 16th century. This new view of substitutionary atonement emphasized punishment over satisfaction (Jesus’ crucifixion as a substitute for human sin) and paralleled criminal law. Today, the phrase “substitutionary atonement” is often (correctly or incorrectly) used to refer to the penal theory of atonement. This week’s meditations touch the surface of 2,000 years of complex theological process.”
And the following Wikipedia entry is quite informative, providing much more detail, including about the “treasury of merit” achieved for us by Christ’s sacrifice and (as I read it) its relation to the sacraments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement
The author’s concern appears to be that misunderstandings of the substitutionary atonement theory, in particular in the “penal” variant adopted in the Reformation instead of Anselm’s “satisfaction” variant, have distorted our image of God and obscured the need for transformation:
“The Franciscan School, led by such teachers as Duns Scotus, refused to see the Incarnation and its finale on the cross as a mere reaction to human failure. God was much more than a problem solver. Instead, Franciscans claimed that the cross was a freely chosen revelation of Love on God’s part. In so doing, they reversed the engines of almost all world religion up to that point, which assumed humans had to spill blood to get to a distant and demanding God. On the cross, Franciscans believed, God was “spilling blood” to reach out to us! This is a sea change in consciousness. Instead of being a theological transaction, the crucifixion was a dramatic demonstration of God’s outpouring love, meant to utterly shock the heart and mind and turn it back toward trust and love of the Creator.” [form Wednesday’s entry]
All that makes sense to me. However, I am not quite so sure about the what the author says about original sin. But again, there seems to be much more to the development of that doctrine than we commonly understand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Mark
I perused what was at the link you provided. Father Richard Rohr's theological musings, at least in part,are problematic from a Catholic understanding.
Tom Nash of Catholic answers writes of Father Rohr:
" ... whatever good he does, Fr. Richard Rohr, O.F.M., is not a reliable teacher of the Catholic Faith."
And also:
"Rohr provides insight into his spiritual outlook when he reveals that he believes in apokatastasis (also spelled apocatastasis), a heresy known more in modern times as “universalism,” which teaches that all the damned, whether men or women or fallen angels, will ultimately be restored and join God in heavenly glory for all eternity. This belief was made somewhat popular by the Church Father Origen, who was misguided on a number of doctrinal matters."
Link to the article:
https://www.catholic.com/qa/a-primer-on-richard-rohr
George:
Thank you for the link and the interesting conversation. I agree that one must be careful with writers such as Father Richard Rohr. Discernment is needed. That is why I expressed the hope that our resident priests would comment on the material I linked.
Speaking personally, I have read quite a few of Rohr’s works. While I find myself disagreeing with some of what he writes, I have also found that he has some very thought-provoking and interesting things to say. Even when I end up disagreeing, he makes me think, which I like.
The “heresy” of universal salvation has an interesting history. The matter appears to be much more nuanced than we might otherwise think, including the history surrounding condemnation of the notion as a heresy. I think Rohr is mistaken if he argues that hell does not exist as a necessary possibility for the ultimate destiny of the human soul. However, if I understand correctly, the Church has never declared any human soul to be in hell, and we are permitted, moreover, to hope that none is. The line between this position and Rohr’s apparent support for the notion of universal salvation is perhaps a fine one.
Perhaps it would advance understanding of these things if people avoided caricaturing opposing positions. For example, some question whether, unless we fear hell, we would be motivated to behave morally. That seems far too easy a way with the problem. I can think of many reasons for trying to be moral, as I am sure you can too, ranging from “purgatory is no picnic” to “surely there are higher motivations than fear of punishment” (don’t most of us refrain from murder and theft, for example, not from fear of punishment but from being educated into virtue?).
But again, in all this, we should be guided by the wisdom of our priests.
Clarification: “I can think of many other reasons for trying to be moral,” not “I can think of many reasons for trying to be moral.”
Post a Comment