"What are critics of Eucharistic processions mad about? What do they want?" They are mad that they failed. They are mad their program to subvert and destroy the Catholic faith hasn't worked and that traditional Catholicism is alive and growing and that their brand of Protestantism-in-Catholic clothing is dying out, like they are dying without having accomplished their one goal of destroying the true Catholic faith. The Francis pontificate is the answer to both questions. It is the last hopeless gasps of a dying ideology and the already-hit gunslinger loosing a shot as they fall down dead. Out of pride and bitterness they want to hurt as many faithful Catholics as they can before they go. Opposition to the Latin Mass, opposition to attempts to make the Novus Ordo resemble Catholic worship, and resistance to public expressions of traditional, RECOGNIZABLE Catholicism are some or all of the last roadblocks they can throw down before they lose their earthly power and lives. They know their work won't last five minutes after they're gone. And these cuckoos in the Church, having long since rationalized away their belief in eternal life, spit at and spite what they hate, when they can get the modern world to help them, and bury their heads in the sand ("synodality") to ignore their disappointment, because they have stored up all their treasure here on earth. They are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Pray for their souls, that they may repent while they still have time, and that God will pardon them for the countless good souls that have fallen away from the one true faith because of them, these wolves in sheep's clothing.
PS: Ed you are spot on with your assessment of the Synodal silliness. This is nothing more than a last ditch effort to Protestantize the faith and an echo chamber for what Pope Francis wants to do anyway. Keep up the good work!
I read an article yesterday which stated who was at table 28 and what they were discussing via a different news outlet. It appeared that the persons in question balanced each other out, thankfully. Hopefully that will be the result at all the tables and the attempt to undermine the faith will fail.
I really liked your discussion about the presumptions included in the questions each group is discussing. You are right that there are many wrong headed, and I would go further and say anti-Vatican II, presumptions. The laity is supposed to bring the Church into the world by living as Christians there, not by becoming ministers but by remaining who they are. One doesn't get rid of clericalism by turning everyone into a cleric.
Will the documents that emerge from this Synod be like the recent second round of Dubia, an “orthodoxy” (heterodoxy) test to see who is following the will of the Synodal Spirit and who is not?
I need to know what Ed. considers the worst English accent ever in cinema. Kevin Kline in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves? That’s the only one I can think of that comes close.
If it is the voice of the Holy Spirit that is speaking through this, why the need for the confidentiality?
Is it because only the selected invitees to the Synod are worthy of witnessing the Holy Spirit in action? Are they the only ones capable of understanding its processes?
Or is it because the Holy Spirit is so shy that we are worried that outsiders peeking in might somehow throw it off course?
And I have to say, I'm disappointed in The Pillar's decision to not publish publicly available information. I understand the ramifications of publishing. You would not be welcome at certain dinner parties or social circles. However giving "cover" to the charade of secrecy around who is sitting at what tables (to "protect" the poor feelings of attendees if they were confronted/held accountable for their input or non-input?) is not the right decision in my mind.
I looked up the "all ministerial" question in the instrumentum laboris, and the "Suggestions for prayer and preparatory reflection" were not terrible https://www.synod.va/content/dam/synod/common/phases/universal-stage/il/ENG_INSTRUMENTUM-LABORIS.pdf (my primary concern was "how is 'everyone has a ministry' not utilitarianism? Have they considered, at all, people with developmental disabilities whom the world values only if they are visibly useful, bagging groceries or greeting shoppers?" They have at least remembered that "people with disabilities" exist so that's something.)
The other question discussed 50:48-54:57 "How can we grow in a synodal style of liturgical celebration, which highlights the distinctive contribution of all participants, starting from the variety of vocations, charisms and ministries they bear?" is itself one of the "Suggestions for prayer etc" for module A https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2023-10/module-a-of-the-synod-on-synodality.html So it is not further elaborated in situ. If I were at a roundtable discussion of this question I would derail it into a campaign to celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours publicly in parish churches with laypeople in choir (they expressly removed the horror-movie psalms from the breviary SO THAT we could do this without anyone fainting away, so it is a shame not to take advantage of it). But, again, this question is steeped in utilitarianism. What about people who don't appear to have a "vocation, charism, or ministry" that could be "highlighted" as a "distinctive contribution"? cf. 1 Cor 12:22-25 are we intent, as always, on giving greater honor to the body parts that are already presentable and whose utility is visible in the eyes of the world? God delights just as much in the apparently useless, such as 1. infants and toddlers at Mass, 2. adults who are incapable (either always or more recently) of understanding a typical homily or giving the correct seasonal responses, and 3. contemplatives (these last are the most useless of all. I would assign Living Flame of Love as summer reading between the two halves of the synod to its participants, except that the internet has taught me that things are received according to the mode of the receiver and therefore it would not be as useful as I imagine it to be; but, since I have the study guide edition somewhere in my to-read pile, I could at least read it myself, I guess. St. John of the Cross has an epic rant in it somewhere.)
So in summary, to paraphrase my sister in Christ, Gwen Stefani:
“This synod is bananas B A N A N A S!”
On participation trophy ecclesiology (which I want on a t-shirt with a big red X through it), I think Monty Python nailed it. “YES WERE ALL INDIVIDUALS!” “I’m not!” SSSHHHHHHH!”
"What are critics of Eucharistic processions mad about? What do they want?" They are mad that they failed. They are mad their program to subvert and destroy the Catholic faith hasn't worked and that traditional Catholicism is alive and growing and that their brand of Protestantism-in-Catholic clothing is dying out, like they are dying without having accomplished their one goal of destroying the true Catholic faith. The Francis pontificate is the answer to both questions. It is the last hopeless gasps of a dying ideology and the already-hit gunslinger loosing a shot as they fall down dead. Out of pride and bitterness they want to hurt as many faithful Catholics as they can before they go. Opposition to the Latin Mass, opposition to attempts to make the Novus Ordo resemble Catholic worship, and resistance to public expressions of traditional, RECOGNIZABLE Catholicism are some or all of the last roadblocks they can throw down before they lose their earthly power and lives. They know their work won't last five minutes after they're gone. And these cuckoos in the Church, having long since rationalized away their belief in eternal life, spit at and spite what they hate, when they can get the modern world to help them, and bury their heads in the sand ("synodality") to ignore their disappointment, because they have stored up all their treasure here on earth. They are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Pray for their souls, that they may repent while they still have time, and that God will pardon them for the countless good souls that have fallen away from the one true faith because of them, these wolves in sheep's clothing.
PS: Ed you are spot on with your assessment of the Synodal silliness. This is nothing more than a last ditch effort to Protestantize the faith and an echo chamber for what Pope Francis wants to do anyway. Keep up the good work!
"I've been to that retreat. I didn't care for it."
I'd get that quote on a coffee mug.
I read an article yesterday which stated who was at table 28 and what they were discussing via a different news outlet. It appeared that the persons in question balanced each other out, thankfully. Hopefully that will be the result at all the tables and the attempt to undermine the faith will fail.
I really liked your discussion about the presumptions included in the questions each group is discussing. You are right that there are many wrong headed, and I would go further and say anti-Vatican II, presumptions. The laity is supposed to bring the Church into the world by living as Christians there, not by becoming ministers but by remaining who they are. One doesn't get rid of clericalism by turning everyone into a cleric.
Will the documents that emerge from this Synod be like the recent second round of Dubia, an “orthodoxy” (heterodoxy) test to see who is following the will of the Synodal Spirit and who is not?
I need to know what Ed. considers the worst English accent ever in cinema. Kevin Kline in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves? That’s the only one I can think of that comes close.
Not Kevin Kline. Kevin Costner. Ugh.
Answer the dubium! The people need to know!
Me Ole bamboo is good but is just a version on step in time from Mary Poppins
Serious question:
If it is the voice of the Holy Spirit that is speaking through this, why the need for the confidentiality?
Is it because only the selected invitees to the Synod are worthy of witnessing the Holy Spirit in action? Are they the only ones capable of understanding its processes?
Or is it because the Holy Spirit is so shy that we are worried that outsiders peeking in might somehow throw it off course?
And I have to say, I'm disappointed in The Pillar's decision to not publish publicly available information. I understand the ramifications of publishing. You would not be welcome at certain dinner parties or social circles. However giving "cover" to the charade of secrecy around who is sitting at what tables (to "protect" the poor feelings of attendees if they were confronted/held accountable for their input or non-input?) is not the right decision in my mind.
I looked up the "all ministerial" question in the instrumentum laboris, and the "Suggestions for prayer and preparatory reflection" were not terrible https://www.synod.va/content/dam/synod/common/phases/universal-stage/il/ENG_INSTRUMENTUM-LABORIS.pdf (my primary concern was "how is 'everyone has a ministry' not utilitarianism? Have they considered, at all, people with developmental disabilities whom the world values only if they are visibly useful, bagging groceries or greeting shoppers?" They have at least remembered that "people with disabilities" exist so that's something.)
The other question discussed 50:48-54:57 "How can we grow in a synodal style of liturgical celebration, which highlights the distinctive contribution of all participants, starting from the variety of vocations, charisms and ministries they bear?" is itself one of the "Suggestions for prayer etc" for module A https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2023-10/module-a-of-the-synod-on-synodality.html So it is not further elaborated in situ. If I were at a roundtable discussion of this question I would derail it into a campaign to celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours publicly in parish churches with laypeople in choir (they expressly removed the horror-movie psalms from the breviary SO THAT we could do this without anyone fainting away, so it is a shame not to take advantage of it). But, again, this question is steeped in utilitarianism. What about people who don't appear to have a "vocation, charism, or ministry" that could be "highlighted" as a "distinctive contribution"? cf. 1 Cor 12:22-25 are we intent, as always, on giving greater honor to the body parts that are already presentable and whose utility is visible in the eyes of the world? God delights just as much in the apparently useless, such as 1. infants and toddlers at Mass, 2. adults who are incapable (either always or more recently) of understanding a typical homily or giving the correct seasonal responses, and 3. contemplatives (these last are the most useless of all. I would assign Living Flame of Love as summer reading between the two halves of the synod to its participants, except that the internet has taught me that things are received according to the mode of the receiver and therefore it would not be as useful as I imagine it to be; but, since I have the study guide edition somewhere in my to-read pile, I could at least read it myself, I guess. St. John of the Cross has an epic rant in it somewhere.)
So in summary, to paraphrase my sister in Christ, Gwen Stefani:
“This synod is bananas B A N A N A S!”
On participation trophy ecclesiology (which I want on a t-shirt with a big red X through it), I think Monty Python nailed it. “YES WERE ALL INDIVIDUALS!” “I’m not!” SSSHHHHHHH!”