The problem I fear, is that most of the voices given time at the coming Synod on Synodality will be the types at this conference. And let's be clear, many of the voices at this conference, dissent from Church teaching on a host of issues, one only need to see that the main journal used to promote what came out of it, is the National Catholic Reporter.
I genuinely don’t understand the concern or confusion about calling for parts of Vatican II to be corrected/rescinded. This has already happened to documents issued at valid ecumenical councils of the past. The Council of Constance issued two major documents: Haec Sancta and Frequens. Frequens mandated that ecumenical councils be held at regular intervals and that they be ordinary parts of the governance of the Church. This document has been ignored since the moment it was printed (almost, I think they met twice on schedule before going back to the model of calling councils only to deal with crises in the Church). Haec Sancta made the declaration that the Pope is subject to the authority of an ecumenical council, which gets its authority solely and directly from God. This is heretical and was, at the very least, indirectly rescinded by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I. And these were dogmatic statements. Vatican II claims to be entirely pastoral. There seems no reason that all or parts of it cannot be undone. I am not claiming that is what should happen. Only that there does not seem to be anything standing in the way of that happening.
Spurred in no small part by JD's vote of confidence, I signed up for (and attended, two weekends ago) one of the synodal listening sessions that my archdiocese (Philly) has organized. There are literally dozens of such sessions happening over the next couple months. There were about 25-30 people there, and I was one of three under the age of 50.
But actually, I was pretty happy with how it went. We did not start with tedious introductions or icebreakers, but with a full 20 minute lectio divina on the Road to Emmaus story, and a prayer asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance. My table included a couple of older ladies lamenting the lost "freedom" of the days of Vatican II, and the relative conservatism of their young pastor, and I was able to share with them my own experience of being basically uncatechized in post-V2 1990s CCD, and the younger generations grateful rediscovery of older traditions that have real beauty and shouldn't be thrown out baby-with-bathwater. They seemed genuinely happy to hear from me, and reassured that someone who could like altar rails and chant could also give an unhesitating thumbs-up to the documents of V2 and the Novus Ordo. I was reminded of how many people are still in the pews who were wounded in different ways by their pre-conciliar experiences of being catechized by rote but not evangelized, and whose questions and curiosities were too often stifled instead of answered.
We also had a good discussion on some current issues in the Church, without veering into politics. (The Institute for Church Leadership helped organize these sessions for the Archdiocese and did a phenomenal job.)
Whether any of my table's comments will have an impact up the chain... Well, who can say. But I think we were all edified by participating in the way JD had hoped.
So why doesn't The Pillar organize an actual synodal listening session that connects the biggest players among this secret gathering of the smartest of the smart pro....whatever it is they claim to have a monopoly of being "pro" of, exactly.... and then all a dream team of the biggest players of the "opposition" who can get into the weeds on Vatican II (distinguishing perhaps between text and application), Humane Vitae (and who DID dissent from it, exactly and whatever happened to them?), and all the last 50 years of controversy like who exactly were the players involved in the so-called "American Church" or "parallel magisterium" I heard so much about in the 1990s.
I think it would be the best thing ever if we got 12 vs. 12 on a stage and gave ourselves a whole weekend or week to hash things out, once and for all, without interruptions. Like a Joe Rogan long form podcast but with a stadium of live audience members.
In my experience there's the actual experts....and then there's the public wonks. There's the real players....and then there's the media creations. There are people who grandstand but can't handle any opposition without blowing a gasket like pretty much anyone at NC Reporter.... and then there are people who can argue without becoming emotionally invested and overwrought.
I've personally met many of the cardinals and bishops over the years. To a man they're sharp cookies. Men don't become Cardinals without being able to string together a persuasive (if sometimes slippery) case for their agendas. Professors etc. tend to be smooth as well and comfortable in the high grass, down in the details of who did what, when, why, and how?
But a surprising number of in-side baseball, ad intra Catholic controversies seem to boil down on bad information, innuendo or guesses taken as infallible revelation, rumors and preference cascades taken as much more weightier than the proof or probability warrants. This sort of thing of course makes for engaging media spectacle and drives clicks but works only in echo chambers which is why the fireworks only happen indirectly across 'party lines' rather than in any open debate with both parties across a table from each other.
We need more examples of actual people who can disagree about serious topics without invective, mobs, or passive aggression and hash out their differences or at least demarcate where the borders are between their positions in real time, face to face.
Insofar as much of the "reflexive opposition" to Pope Francis is rooted in a similar opposition to the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy's program of reform, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation's promotion of the development of doctrine, and the Declarations on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions and on Religious Freedom's unequivocal changes to the traditional teachings and practices of the Church by admitting that religion and faith are matters of personal conscience and not state coercion, then, yes, these opponents DO advocate turning back the clock.
These discussions of how the left/ right members of the Catholic Church should dialogue and synods should be implemented to reform and renew the Church are all happy talk. The right consists of the old who will unquestionably die believing whatever they choose to believe , and the left wants to move the church away from orthodoxy and doctrines. The trajectory the American Church is clear. Fewer children will be baptized and baptized Catholics will continue to leave while the old/right will die. By 2050 , between deaths and loss of membership the Church will be much smaller. It’s ultimate survival will depend on what it’s overseers want it to be. To grow, it has two problems. First, the young don’t like any “ organized religion” and those looking for a religious home don’t like absolutes. Is the Holy Spirit moving people to find God wherever he might be? Why should anyone want to be part of the Church? Previously members thought faithfulness was a sine qua non for Heaven. Few believe that any more . The sacraments are considered feel good rituals. The Church still believes it is the way , the truth and the light. Others believe He who is those things is not tied to or defined by any organization. How do you deal with that if you want to keep your organization relevant?
I just have to shake my head at the absurdity of a bunch of left-leaning "progressive" prelates bringing in the likes of Massimo Faggioli to 'splain America's conservative and/or trad-leaning Catholics. I mean, talk about tone deaf. Of course, the truth is that they really don't want an explanation of anything of the sort. If they did, they'd invite a Phil Lawler or a Patrick Madrid or a Father Gerry Murray or a Monsignor Charles Pope. No, they don't want information. They want an echo chamber of the comfortable lies that they've been telling each other for decades, and it sounds like that's exactly what they got.
I believe that Pope Francis is the pope and so gains the right to all the "perks" of being the Pope, if that's an appropriate word for it. But it also is extremely concerning to me that first of all any mention of the Pope being at all problematic is met with cancellation of the same degree rampant in American society today. It also is extremely concerning to me that nobody remembers that the statue of Pachamama was fished out of the Tiber and also placed on the altar of St. Peter's in a great show of reverence.
The problem I fear, is that most of the voices given time at the coming Synod on Synodality will be the types at this conference. And let's be clear, many of the voices at this conference, dissent from Church teaching on a host of issues, one only need to see that the main journal used to promote what came out of it, is the National Catholic Reporter.
I genuinely don’t understand the concern or confusion about calling for parts of Vatican II to be corrected/rescinded. This has already happened to documents issued at valid ecumenical councils of the past. The Council of Constance issued two major documents: Haec Sancta and Frequens. Frequens mandated that ecumenical councils be held at regular intervals and that they be ordinary parts of the governance of the Church. This document has been ignored since the moment it was printed (almost, I think they met twice on schedule before going back to the model of calling councils only to deal with crises in the Church). Haec Sancta made the declaration that the Pope is subject to the authority of an ecumenical council, which gets its authority solely and directly from God. This is heretical and was, at the very least, indirectly rescinded by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I. And these were dogmatic statements. Vatican II claims to be entirely pastoral. There seems no reason that all or parts of it cannot be undone. I am not claiming that is what should happen. Only that there does not seem to be anything standing in the way of that happening.
Spurred in no small part by JD's vote of confidence, I signed up for (and attended, two weekends ago) one of the synodal listening sessions that my archdiocese (Philly) has organized. There are literally dozens of such sessions happening over the next couple months. There were about 25-30 people there, and I was one of three under the age of 50.
But actually, I was pretty happy with how it went. We did not start with tedious introductions or icebreakers, but with a full 20 minute lectio divina on the Road to Emmaus story, and a prayer asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance. My table included a couple of older ladies lamenting the lost "freedom" of the days of Vatican II, and the relative conservatism of their young pastor, and I was able to share with them my own experience of being basically uncatechized in post-V2 1990s CCD, and the younger generations grateful rediscovery of older traditions that have real beauty and shouldn't be thrown out baby-with-bathwater. They seemed genuinely happy to hear from me, and reassured that someone who could like altar rails and chant could also give an unhesitating thumbs-up to the documents of V2 and the Novus Ordo. I was reminded of how many people are still in the pews who were wounded in different ways by their pre-conciliar experiences of being catechized by rote but not evangelized, and whose questions and curiosities were too often stifled instead of answered.
We also had a good discussion on some current issues in the Church, without veering into politics. (The Institute for Church Leadership helped organize these sessions for the Archdiocese and did a phenomenal job.)
Whether any of my table's comments will have an impact up the chain... Well, who can say. But I think we were all edified by participating in the way JD had hoped.
So why doesn't The Pillar organize an actual synodal listening session that connects the biggest players among this secret gathering of the smartest of the smart pro....whatever it is they claim to have a monopoly of being "pro" of, exactly.... and then all a dream team of the biggest players of the "opposition" who can get into the weeds on Vatican II (distinguishing perhaps between text and application), Humane Vitae (and who DID dissent from it, exactly and whatever happened to them?), and all the last 50 years of controversy like who exactly were the players involved in the so-called "American Church" or "parallel magisterium" I heard so much about in the 1990s.
I think it would be the best thing ever if we got 12 vs. 12 on a stage and gave ourselves a whole weekend or week to hash things out, once and for all, without interruptions. Like a Joe Rogan long form podcast but with a stadium of live audience members.
In my experience there's the actual experts....and then there's the public wonks. There's the real players....and then there's the media creations. There are people who grandstand but can't handle any opposition without blowing a gasket like pretty much anyone at NC Reporter.... and then there are people who can argue without becoming emotionally invested and overwrought.
I've personally met many of the cardinals and bishops over the years. To a man they're sharp cookies. Men don't become Cardinals without being able to string together a persuasive (if sometimes slippery) case for their agendas. Professors etc. tend to be smooth as well and comfortable in the high grass, down in the details of who did what, when, why, and how?
But a surprising number of in-side baseball, ad intra Catholic controversies seem to boil down on bad information, innuendo or guesses taken as infallible revelation, rumors and preference cascades taken as much more weightier than the proof or probability warrants. This sort of thing of course makes for engaging media spectacle and drives clicks but works only in echo chambers which is why the fireworks only happen indirectly across 'party lines' rather than in any open debate with both parties across a table from each other.
We need more examples of actual people who can disagree about serious topics without invective, mobs, or passive aggression and hash out their differences or at least demarcate where the borders are between their positions in real time, face to face.
Insofar as much of the "reflexive opposition" to Pope Francis is rooted in a similar opposition to the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy's program of reform, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation's promotion of the development of doctrine, and the Declarations on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions and on Religious Freedom's unequivocal changes to the traditional teachings and practices of the Church by admitting that religion and faith are matters of personal conscience and not state coercion, then, yes, these opponents DO advocate turning back the clock.
These discussions of how the left/ right members of the Catholic Church should dialogue and synods should be implemented to reform and renew the Church are all happy talk. The right consists of the old who will unquestionably die believing whatever they choose to believe , and the left wants to move the church away from orthodoxy and doctrines. The trajectory the American Church is clear. Fewer children will be baptized and baptized Catholics will continue to leave while the old/right will die. By 2050 , between deaths and loss of membership the Church will be much smaller. It’s ultimate survival will depend on what it’s overseers want it to be. To grow, it has two problems. First, the young don’t like any “ organized religion” and those looking for a religious home don’t like absolutes. Is the Holy Spirit moving people to find God wherever he might be? Why should anyone want to be part of the Church? Previously members thought faithfulness was a sine qua non for Heaven. Few believe that any more . The sacraments are considered feel good rituals. The Church still believes it is the way , the truth and the light. Others believe He who is those things is not tied to or defined by any organization. How do you deal with that if you want to keep your organization relevant?
I just have to shake my head at the absurdity of a bunch of left-leaning "progressive" prelates bringing in the likes of Massimo Faggioli to 'splain America's conservative and/or trad-leaning Catholics. I mean, talk about tone deaf. Of course, the truth is that they really don't want an explanation of anything of the sort. If they did, they'd invite a Phil Lawler or a Patrick Madrid or a Father Gerry Murray or a Monsignor Charles Pope. No, they don't want information. They want an echo chamber of the comfortable lies that they've been telling each other for decades, and it sounds like that's exactly what they got.
I believe that Pope Francis is the pope and so gains the right to all the "perks" of being the Pope, if that's an appropriate word for it. But it also is extremely concerning to me that first of all any mention of the Pope being at all problematic is met with cancellation of the same degree rampant in American society today. It also is extremely concerning to me that nobody remembers that the statue of Pachamama was fished out of the Tiber and also placed on the altar of St. Peter's in a great show of reverence.
Did not appreciate the "make your inbox great again" reference.