Also, sadly unsurprising to see that when the synod didn't push the boundary's of anthropology hard enough, a smaller more selective group will be given an invitation to do so.
P St John Paul II wrote The Theology of the Body. This simulacrum of true synodality has created The Theology of the Question Mark. Years ago, referring to men considering the Priesthood, Msgr Timothy Dolan said that a man would give his life for a mystery but not for a question mark. This idea of synodality is one that understands the Church less as a mystery and more as a question mark. Few things have slowed down the evangelical and catechetical mission more than synodality. I am convinced that P Francis is not liberal or conservative. His only passion is to stay in power and be the ONE to make decisions. This new wrinkle in The Theology of the Question Mark keeps all power (not authority) in the pope's hands for another few years. Look at the topics. This will keep everyone fighting, debating, and ultimately exhausted, all the while the ONE in Rome remains the person who will ultimately choose.
In a theological setting, the Church’s responsibility is to deepen consciences over time. Faith and reason. And so for every doctrine the Church has, it is attempting to go deeper and deeper. This typically happens in one of three ways: balancing out (first teaching was true but only looked at part of the picture, sharpening a grain image (like a newer telescope), and maturing (like a kid to an adult). You cannot discard the older truths but instead further distinguish. But never would it be a good idea for doctrine to be stagnant—nor has the Church ever in history sought that.
Balancing out: Sure, the Christological heresies show this nicely.
Sharpening: Sure, I think the development of our Eucharistic doctrine, or the articulation of the seven sacraments, would be nice examples of this.
Maturing: Do you have any examples of what you mean by this? I'm not aware of any kid-to-adult changes in our doctrine since the apostles stopped following the Jewish ceremonial law and such things.
I would suggest that the Church's teaching on the death penalty plausibly qualifies as "maturing."
We have gone from, "the death penalty is a regular occurrence for lots of offenses and nobody really bats an eye to its use" to "the death penalty is permissible as a last resort" to "the death penalty is something we really should be trying to get rid of altogether."
This change isn't one where the actual moral teaching has changed, but one in which the Church has increasingly realized that we have an opportunity to conform society towards the Gospel.
So just to be clear, the confidential meeting on meetings will now have secretive little committees composed of who knows who to determine the serious matters while the secretive big meeting on meetings discusses how to have meetings in a missionary way?
Every time I read synod statements I'm struck by how much they use a lot of words to say not very much. Lots of use of the word "dynamism" and it's forms, lots of use of synodality, lots of use of missing, but never really getting at any particular referent with those words.
Pope Benedict XVI specifically taught that the people of God are more than the local churches. He literally wrote his doctorate on it. As a Catholic, how do I stay true to the magisterium of Benedict and reject the magisterium of Francis? They are incompatible, so we need to pick one.
Just study the dogmas of the Faith and wait for all this modernist swaying in the wind to vanish without a trace as the next wind comes along and we get so excited about that instead.
The theology of marriage in the Eastern Catholic Churches and Western Catholic Church are incompatible as well, at least insofar as who the minister is. But that doesn't necessitate picking one. Or if you prefer a different conflict that is not yet resolved, the Church has yet to clarify doctrinally whether Augustine/Cyril or Origen were right on whether unbaptized infants go to heaven. The Church can survive ambiguity.
If you observe a conflict between Francis and his predecessors do not be troubled. In the short term ask in line with JHN if they can be reconciled as development. In the long term trust that there is only one Magisterium, deposited by God with the Church, and that the Holy Spirit will reveal it in time. After all, that clarification doesn't happen according to our plans but His.
I assumed that we were obliged to believe what the Catholic Church teaches regarding marriage, including who the minister is. As for the rest, thanks for articulating it better than I could in my bitterness.
We are. My point was that contradiction between parts of the same Catholic Church need not be a cause for distress. There are many many things that will only be definitively resolved in the fulness of God's plan.
The important point is whether the Church has settled a question dogmatically or not. If it has then a Catholic is obliged to obey the teachings of the Church. If it has not then theologians help the Church by arguing about the issue in order to help bring clarity to the question.
FWIW, I'd say we are obligated to follow on doctrine as well as dogma. Not all doctrine being dogma but all dogma being doctrine, but at a further more final point of development.
This is getting as hard to follow as the financial trial(s). Meanwhile, can anyone translate "discernment of ethical anthropological issues " into everyday terms for me?
Yes, this is huge because Christian ethics (discriminating between which actions are loving and which are evil) are based on our definition of Christian anthropology. Changing the Church's definition of anthropology could redefine actions that we now define as evil (e.g., sodomy, fornication, prostitution) to be loving. Of course, the language and thought are much more complex than what I can say in this short space here yet that is it in a thumbnail.
I'm guessing that "anthropological issues" really means polygamy. Parallel polygamy is an issue mainly in Africa, but serial polygamy can happen anywhere and may need lots of these shiny new spontaneous blessings. Don't expect clarity, honesty, pastoral consistency or sound doctrine in any continent.
The setting up of these study groups seems to presage what could be a complete revolution in the theology, ethics, pastoral and sacramental practice, organisation and self-understanding of the Catholic Church. No-one can say that the present regime is limited in its ambitions or slack in its efforts to pursue them.
As one who has tried to keep up with the synod in a diocese that gave lip service to it and continues to do so, I am so appalled at the comments here. This is the church of Jesus. He has appointed the leaders through the Holy Spirit. Could some of you get out of the way of the Spirit,PLEASE?
But how do we know who is in the way of the Spirit? The world's bishops hardly agree (see McElroy and Schneider), so surely we can't assume that they, every one, are the Holy Spirit's chosen instruments to ensure moral and dogmatic unity. Or if they are, some of them are clearly rejecting the call. Which ones?
To answer that, you can either assume that the pope is acting in accordance with the wishes of the Holy Spirit or you can weigh everything according to the well-established moral and dogmatic theology of the Church, as defined in ex cathedra statements, steady witness of the hierarchy, theologians, and saints over the centuries, ecumenical councils, and of course the Scriptures. I don't see a way to do both at once: it seems to be pretty universally acknowledged that the pope is setting himself at odds with many venerable and well-established traditions of the Church. Of course this is going to cause pain on all sides, as those who agree with the pope want the Church to fall in line, those who believe his actions are incompatible with tradition want him to repent, and (I hope) no one wants the Bride of Christ to shatter into even more pieces than she is in already.
Please cut those who disagree with you some slack.
Those who disagree with me and others are free to do that and even encouraged to do that. I have spent nearly 65 years in service to the church. Those years have given me the same right as those who disagree. Believe it or not,the church HAS changed both its teachings and stance on many issues. It will continue to do that through the guidance of the Spirit.Peace be with you!
Great. Then if we're allowed to express our concern, maybe don't accuse us of deliberately obstructing the third Person of the Blessed Trinity when we do so? Thanks! (This is regarding your request for us to get out of the Holy Spirit's way.)
I find others' viewpoints valuable and intriguing, but I don't think I'm only speaking for myself when I say that personal attacks make it harder to grasp any legitimate points you wish to make.
Are you saying that the apostolic Church as currently constituted is in the way of the Spirit? I don’t, in fact I think the opposite. I think synodality is worldly and non-holy. The more I see of it the less I like it.
Wow, you went there. I hope you don’t present yourself for communion. I don’t see how you can say you believe in “one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church” and simultaneously think that the body purporting to be that is blocking the Holy Sprit.
This makes me very nervous. It just looks like that since the first major synod meeting did not go as far as he wanted it to, Pope Francis is just creating these Study Groups to do an end run around the synod, while giving him more control of who is making the decisions.
Pope Francis seems like he likes discussing these issues, but doesn't seem to like coming to a conclusion on them. That started long before the Synod on Synodality, didn't it? I seem to recall that the commission on the extension of the diaconate to women predated the SoS, for instance.
I think we can all agree that this is a blessing and a curse, though I don't think everyone would agree on which part is the blessing.
It’s because talk is extremely cheap to Francis. While he is getting everyone to talk, talk, talk, he governs with autocratic actions like Fiducia Supplicans which change the praxis of the Church.
The synodality will continue until morale improves.
hahaha - almost spit out my coffee reading that.
Sadly, we're not a serious Church right now.
Also, sadly unsurprising to see that when the synod didn't push the boundary's of anthropology hard enough, a smaller more selective group will be given an invitation to do so.
I think we’re struggling quite a bit here in that area of Theology. In the USA I’ve only ever heard of complementarity described in structural terms. What about the rest of it? https://www.avvenire.it/amp/chiesa/pagine/omosessuali-libro-fumagalli-prefazione-semeraro
Jeff, an excellent insight.
P St John Paul II wrote The Theology of the Body. This simulacrum of true synodality has created The Theology of the Question Mark. Years ago, referring to men considering the Priesthood, Msgr Timothy Dolan said that a man would give his life for a mystery but not for a question mark. This idea of synodality is one that understands the Church less as a mystery and more as a question mark. Few things have slowed down the evangelical and catechetical mission more than synodality. I am convinced that P Francis is not liberal or conservative. His only passion is to stay in power and be the ONE to make decisions. This new wrinkle in The Theology of the Question Mark keeps all power (not authority) in the pope's hands for another few years. Look at the topics. This will keep everyone fighting, debating, and ultimately exhausted, all the while the ONE in Rome remains the person who will ultimately choose.
In a theological setting, the Church’s responsibility is to deepen consciences over time. Faith and reason. And so for every doctrine the Church has, it is attempting to go deeper and deeper. This typically happens in one of three ways: balancing out (first teaching was true but only looked at part of the picture, sharpening a grain image (like a newer telescope), and maturing (like a kid to an adult). You cannot discard the older truths but instead further distinguish. But never would it be a good idea for doctrine to be stagnant—nor has the Church ever in history sought that.
Balancing out: Sure, the Christological heresies show this nicely.
Sharpening: Sure, I think the development of our Eucharistic doctrine, or the articulation of the seven sacraments, would be nice examples of this.
Maturing: Do you have any examples of what you mean by this? I'm not aware of any kid-to-adult changes in our doctrine since the apostles stopped following the Jewish ceremonial law and such things.
I would suggest that the Church's teaching on the death penalty plausibly qualifies as "maturing."
We have gone from, "the death penalty is a regular occurrence for lots of offenses and nobody really bats an eye to its use" to "the death penalty is permissible as a last resort" to "the death penalty is something we really should be trying to get rid of altogether."
This change isn't one where the actual moral teaching has changed, but one in which the Church has increasingly realized that we have an opportunity to conform society towards the Gospel.
This is the synod that doesn't end.
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend.
Some people started synoding not knowing what it was,
And they′ll continue synoding forever just because
This is the synod that doesn't end…
I was singing the same song in my head and then I say you already commented it!
My heart sunk with this news.
Will this get more people in the pews?
Let’s stop the worldliness and blather.
Get on our knees, read the Bible and gather.
Alright, we have officially jumped the shark. Parody level.
I almost could not comprehend the tasks and study areas of the groups.
Nor can those involved...busy, busy with the Synod, when the world needs authentic evangelization.
So just to be clear, the confidential meeting on meetings will now have secretive little committees composed of who knows who to determine the serious matters while the secretive big meeting on meetings discusses how to have meetings in a missionary way?
I suspect the question you have raised will require a series of secret but synodal committee meetings to resolve.
In which dicasteries do these topics normally reside? Does this move represent a weakening of the bishops' influence?
A synodal Church on mission? Have they even answered the question of what a synodal Church is?
Every time I read synod statements I'm struck by how much they use a lot of words to say not very much. Lots of use of the word "dynamism" and it's forms, lots of use of synodality, lots of use of missing, but never really getting at any particular referent with those words.
Pope Benedict XVI specifically taught that the people of God are more than the local churches. He literally wrote his doctorate on it. As a Catholic, how do I stay true to the magisterium of Benedict and reject the magisterium of Francis? They are incompatible, so we need to pick one.
Just study the dogmas of the Faith and wait for all this modernist swaying in the wind to vanish without a trace as the next wind comes along and we get so excited about that instead.
I need a troll-laughing emoji for this.
The theology of marriage in the Eastern Catholic Churches and Western Catholic Church are incompatible as well, at least insofar as who the minister is. But that doesn't necessitate picking one. Or if you prefer a different conflict that is not yet resolved, the Church has yet to clarify doctrinally whether Augustine/Cyril or Origen were right on whether unbaptized infants go to heaven. The Church can survive ambiguity.
If you observe a conflict between Francis and his predecessors do not be troubled. In the short term ask in line with JHN if they can be reconciled as development. In the long term trust that there is only one Magisterium, deposited by God with the Church, and that the Holy Spirit will reveal it in time. After all, that clarification doesn't happen according to our plans but His.
I assumed that we were obliged to believe what the Catholic Church teaches regarding marriage, including who the minister is. As for the rest, thanks for articulating it better than I could in my bitterness.
We are. My point was that contradiction between parts of the same Catholic Church need not be a cause for distress. There are many many things that will only be definitively resolved in the fulness of God's plan.
The important point is whether the Church has settled a question dogmatically or not. If it has then a Catholic is obliged to obey the teachings of the Church. If it has not then theologians help the Church by arguing about the issue in order to help bring clarity to the question.
FWIW, I'd say we are obligated to follow on doctrine as well as dogma. Not all doctrine being dogma but all dogma being doctrine, but at a further more final point of development.
This is getting as hard to follow as the financial trial(s). Meanwhile, can anyone translate "discernment of ethical anthropological issues " into everyday terms for me?
"discernment of ethical anthropological issues"
Yes, this is huge because Christian ethics (discriminating between which actions are loving and which are evil) are based on our definition of Christian anthropology. Changing the Church's definition of anthropology could redefine actions that we now define as evil (e.g., sodomy, fornication, prostitution) to be loving. Of course, the language and thought are much more complex than what I can say in this short space here yet that is it in a thumbnail.
I'm guessing that "anthropological issues" really means polygamy. Parallel polygamy is an issue mainly in Africa, but serial polygamy can happen anywhere and may need lots of these shiny new spontaneous blessings. Don't expect clarity, honesty, pastoral consistency or sound doctrine in any continent.
The setting up of these study groups seems to presage what could be a complete revolution in the theology, ethics, pastoral and sacramental practice, organisation and self-understanding of the Catholic Church. No-one can say that the present regime is limited in its ambitions or slack in its efforts to pursue them.
As one who has tried to keep up with the synod in a diocese that gave lip service to it and continues to do so, I am so appalled at the comments here. This is the church of Jesus. He has appointed the leaders through the Holy Spirit. Could some of you get out of the way of the Spirit,PLEASE?
But how do we know who is in the way of the Spirit? The world's bishops hardly agree (see McElroy and Schneider), so surely we can't assume that they, every one, are the Holy Spirit's chosen instruments to ensure moral and dogmatic unity. Or if they are, some of them are clearly rejecting the call. Which ones?
To answer that, you can either assume that the pope is acting in accordance with the wishes of the Holy Spirit or you can weigh everything according to the well-established moral and dogmatic theology of the Church, as defined in ex cathedra statements, steady witness of the hierarchy, theologians, and saints over the centuries, ecumenical councils, and of course the Scriptures. I don't see a way to do both at once: it seems to be pretty universally acknowledged that the pope is setting himself at odds with many venerable and well-established traditions of the Church. Of course this is going to cause pain on all sides, as those who agree with the pope want the Church to fall in line, those who believe his actions are incompatible with tradition want him to repent, and (I hope) no one wants the Bride of Christ to shatter into even more pieces than she is in already.
Please cut those who disagree with you some slack.
Those who disagree with me and others are free to do that and even encouraged to do that. I have spent nearly 65 years in service to the church. Those years have given me the same right as those who disagree. Believe it or not,the church HAS changed both its teachings and stance on many issues. It will continue to do that through the guidance of the Spirit.Peace be with you!
Great. Then if we're allowed to express our concern, maybe don't accuse us of deliberately obstructing the third Person of the Blessed Trinity when we do so? Thanks! (This is regarding your request for us to get out of the Holy Spirit's way.)
I find others' viewpoints valuable and intriguing, but I don't think I'm only speaking for myself when I say that personal attacks make it harder to grasp any legitimate points you wish to make.
Are you saying that the apostolic Church as currently constituted is in the way of the Spirit? I don’t, in fact I think the opposite. I think synodality is worldly and non-holy. The more I see of it the less I like it.
Yes
Wow, you went there. I hope you don’t present yourself for communion. I don’t see how you can say you believe in “one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church” and simultaneously think that the body purporting to be that is blocking the Holy Sprit.
This makes me very nervous. It just looks like that since the first major synod meeting did not go as far as he wanted it to, Pope Francis is just creating these Study Groups to do an end run around the synod, while giving him more control of who is making the decisions.
Pope Francis seems like he likes discussing these issues, but doesn't seem to like coming to a conclusion on them. That started long before the Synod on Synodality, didn't it? I seem to recall that the commission on the extension of the diaconate to women predated the SoS, for instance.
I think we can all agree that this is a blessing and a curse, though I don't think everyone would agree on which part is the blessing.
It’s because talk is extremely cheap to Francis. While he is getting everyone to talk, talk, talk, he governs with autocratic actions like Fiducia Supplicans which change the praxis of the Church.