I gather that we are now in the interval in which anyone who was at the first synod session can say whatever they like about what happened there with total impunity (if I had been present, my take would be "we spent many hours debating whether it is really true that incense cannot make a person cough who is in a state of grace - I, of course, as an asthmatic, hold that there are several exceptions to this general rule - I am astonished to find that this is not mentioned in the document since it is a really important issue to a minority of faithful Catholics". For legal purposes this is a joke.)
Yes, apparently there is invisible ink that modifies all references to the faithful, the People of God, etc. to exclude these people. Because they could not possibly be included in open references to the Church. I could ask where one goes to learn how to read this sort of thing into all documents, but I fear the answer.
As someone with asthma I am grateful to my pastor for informing us of which Mass won't have incense, and to the parish as a whole for having a mostly smoke free cry room.
Some other commentators have mentioned that the point isn't the substance of what the Synod recommends in its documents, but rather that the process is the point. The "controversial" issues discussed at the Synod will be kept alive through the establishment of more committees and councils (as proposed in the document), and the semi-regular discussion of these issues will become a routine part of the operation of the Church. This provides more opportunities for creeping incremental change in the future. So while this document may not have yielded the exact results the reformers wanted, there will be another opportunity next year, and then more meetings after that, and so on, ad nauseam.
And also, remember that it doesn't really matter what is or isn't in the document, as far as this particular Synod goes. Pope Francis has the final say, and even if something is in the document, it doesn't mean it will be carried forward by him. But on the other hand, just because something is left out of the document, doesn't mean he will leave it out of his post-Synod document. His controversial footnote from Amoris Laetitia that purportedly allows some couples in invalid marriages to receive communion wasn't in the Synod document back in 2015.
I also expect those disappointed in the Synod so far will be regrouping for 2024. I'm not sure if the participants are the exact same for next year, but if they are then I'm sure there will be some strategy discussed for advancing their goals next time. The controversy is still just getting started.
Father Timothy Radcliffe advised the Synod participants that the 11 months up to Oct 2024 will be like the period when a plant matures out of sight underground. So I guess there will be plenty of underground plotting ahead.
It appears the text is a jargon-filled document…it’s interesting to see the terms “pastoral discernment,” “pastoral accompaniment,” etc. as a thinly veiled euphemism for doing what one wants with only lip service to Scripture and Tradition. I submit it is indeed possible and preferable to accompany someone while lovingly sharing the truths of the Gospel. One only has to look at the implosion of the Episcopal/Anglican Church in the West to see the effects of departing from the ageless truths of the Church.
I recently read that the most expensive city in America is San Diego. I pray that Cardinal McElroy can focus more on his local diocesan needs. A border city with high costs is a challenge and a blessing for a priest who looks at how he can minister to his own backyard.
I'm still just waiting for them to define what synodality actually is, and what the whole point of this thing is supposed to be. I still genuinely don't know what the point of all this is.
Check out another Pillar article on the final draft of the interim report. See item 4 on a proposal to clarify terms such as synodality (I guess by Oct 2024??). But even the revised text is written in such dense jargon. It suggests that the "clarifying" definition of synodality will itself require clarifying and translation into plain English. By which time, Pope Francis will probably be doing whatever he wants.
It's just absurd that after a month of synod meetings they are apparently still trying to figure out what exactly it is that they are doing. These aren't serious people.
I read that there were a surprising number of defenders of the Latin Mass at the Synod, but I have not heard of there being any mention of it in the synod report.
Cardinal McElroy‘s comment is horrible and not surprising. It is Modernism plain and simple, an anti-doctrinal principle masquerading as the euphemism “pastoral theology”.
It runs in the same vein of thought that mercy and justice are opposed to each other instead of co-constituent components of charity. You simply can't have one without the other. Something can't be understood as pastoral if it defies doctrine, and doctrine doesn't serve charity when it is used as a club.
What's so aggravating is that this is a prince of the Church who by all accounts is an educated man. This is how errors get deeply rooted in Catholic consciousness.
Pope Francis says this Synod of Bishops and Others isn't about changing doctrine. It's not about “structural, organizational or functional change.” The Synod then proceeds to spend it's time discussing changing doctrine and “structural, organizational or functional change.” And it was all laid out ahead of time by the Synod organizers. Presumably Pope Francis read the document. He even appointed Cardinal Hollerich personally. A person who is known to talk about changing doctrine with regards human sexuality.
At what point is the Pope responsible for this most predictable outcome?
I think a lot of people conflate the human (and very necessary) use of small "j" judgement, concerning someone's intentions or their conscience, with the capital "J" Judgement which is reserved for God alone. For example, we may be able to determine, under certain circumstances, that a driver intentionally ran a red traffic light. We might be wrong, however, to judge (from that observation alone) that he acted with foreknowledge and callous disregard for the resulting traffic accident and attendant human suffering. But if we were able to determine that the driver did act with foreknowledge and callous disregard, condemning both his action and his intention (judging his "conscience") is not only permissible, it's morally required (thus our laws that distinguish between negligent and intentional infliction of harm). Christ forbade us (James 4:12) from claiming a right to judge that the driver (through his action or his intention) is condemned to Hell, but only that Judgement is for God alone.
The Pope’s document about theology and redirection of the Pontifical Academy of Theology turns out to be a more important story than the synod. It seems to be a total repudiation of the theological traditions of the Church; for instance, not a single theological course taught at the institutions that have sponsored the Pillar—Christendom College or University of Dallas—would likely qualify as the kind of “contextual theology” that Pope Francis praises. Nor perhaps any of the work of his predecessor.
It also should shock any Catholic who is knowledgeable about the goings on in the Church today as well as anyone who holds the faith of the Apostles.
“Doctrine stands in service to the pastoral mission of the Church.”
This is similar to statements out of the General Synod of the C of E during the debates on the "ordination" of women bishops.
"ecclesiological Overton window"
Shudder.
If James Martin, S.J., is disappointed, not all is lost.
I gather that we are now in the interval in which anyone who was at the first synod session can say whatever they like about what happened there with total impunity (if I had been present, my take would be "we spent many hours debating whether it is really true that incense cannot make a person cough who is in a state of grace - I, of course, as an asthmatic, hold that there are several exceptions to this general rule - I am astonished to find that this is not mentioned in the document since it is a really important issue to a minority of faithful Catholics". For legal purposes this is a joke.)
Yes, apparently there is invisible ink that modifies all references to the faithful, the People of God, etc. to exclude these people. Because they could not possibly be included in open references to the Church. I could ask where one goes to learn how to read this sort of thing into all documents, but I fear the answer.
Excellent analysis. Made me smile. Thank you.
As someone with asthma I am grateful to my pastor for informing us of which Mass won't have incense, and to the parish as a whole for having a mostly smoke free cry room.
Typo: “To say that views on s subject…”. Change “s” to “a”?
Moving on to topics of substance: great article, Ed!
Some other commentators have mentioned that the point isn't the substance of what the Synod recommends in its documents, but rather that the process is the point. The "controversial" issues discussed at the Synod will be kept alive through the establishment of more committees and councils (as proposed in the document), and the semi-regular discussion of these issues will become a routine part of the operation of the Church. This provides more opportunities for creeping incremental change in the future. So while this document may not have yielded the exact results the reformers wanted, there will be another opportunity next year, and then more meetings after that, and so on, ad nauseam.
And also, remember that it doesn't really matter what is or isn't in the document, as far as this particular Synod goes. Pope Francis has the final say, and even if something is in the document, it doesn't mean it will be carried forward by him. But on the other hand, just because something is left out of the document, doesn't mean he will leave it out of his post-Synod document. His controversial footnote from Amoris Laetitia that purportedly allows some couples in invalid marriages to receive communion wasn't in the Synod document back in 2015.
I also expect those disappointed in the Synod so far will be regrouping for 2024. I'm not sure if the participants are the exact same for next year, but if they are then I'm sure there will be some strategy discussed for advancing their goals next time. The controversy is still just getting started.
Yep. The lawless legislator can strike whenever he chooses.
A great synopsis of the reality.
Father Timothy Radcliffe advised the Synod participants that the 11 months up to Oct 2024 will be like the period when a plant matures out of sight underground. So I guess there will be plenty of underground plotting ahead.
It appears the text is a jargon-filled document…it’s interesting to see the terms “pastoral discernment,” “pastoral accompaniment,” etc. as a thinly veiled euphemism for doing what one wants with only lip service to Scripture and Tradition. I submit it is indeed possible and preferable to accompany someone while lovingly sharing the truths of the Gospel. One only has to look at the implosion of the Episcopal/Anglican Church in the West to see the effects of departing from the ageless truths of the Church.
I recently read that the most expensive city in America is San Diego. I pray that Cardinal McElroy can focus more on his local diocesan needs. A border city with high costs is a challenge and a blessing for a priest who looks at how he can minister to his own backyard.
I'm still just waiting for them to define what synodality actually is, and what the whole point of this thing is supposed to be. I still genuinely don't know what the point of all this is.
Check out another Pillar article on the final draft of the interim report. See item 4 on a proposal to clarify terms such as synodality (I guess by Oct 2024??). But even the revised text is written in such dense jargon. It suggests that the "clarifying" definition of synodality will itself require clarifying and translation into plain English. By which time, Pope Francis will probably be doing whatever he wants.
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/from-draft-to-final-text-10-ways
It's just absurd that after a month of synod meetings they are apparently still trying to figure out what exactly it is that they are doing. These aren't serious people.
Did the Synod address at all any concerns about how the Latin Mass Community feels marginalized and oppressed by their own Church?
I read that there were a surprising number of defenders of the Latin Mass at the Synod, but I have not heard of there being any mention of it in the synod report.
Cardinal McElroy‘s comment is horrible and not surprising. It is Modernism plain and simple, an anti-doctrinal principle masquerading as the euphemism “pastoral theology”.
It runs in the same vein of thought that mercy and justice are opposed to each other instead of co-constituent components of charity. You simply can't have one without the other. Something can't be understood as pastoral if it defies doctrine, and doctrine doesn't serve charity when it is used as a club.
What's so aggravating is that this is a prince of the Church who by all accounts is an educated man. This is how errors get deeply rooted in Catholic consciousness.
Along the lines of "the U.S. Constitution is a living document" that only means what the people in power say it means.
Pope Francis says this Synod of Bishops and Others isn't about changing doctrine. It's not about “structural, organizational or functional change.” The Synod then proceeds to spend it's time discussing changing doctrine and “structural, organizational or functional change.” And it was all laid out ahead of time by the Synod organizers. Presumably Pope Francis read the document. He even appointed Cardinal Hollerich personally. A person who is known to talk about changing doctrine with regards human sexuality.
At what point is the Pope responsible for this most predictable outcome?
I think a lot of people conflate the human (and very necessary) use of small "j" judgement, concerning someone's intentions or their conscience, with the capital "J" Judgement which is reserved for God alone. For example, we may be able to determine, under certain circumstances, that a driver intentionally ran a red traffic light. We might be wrong, however, to judge (from that observation alone) that he acted with foreknowledge and callous disregard for the resulting traffic accident and attendant human suffering. But if we were able to determine that the driver did act with foreknowledge and callous disregard, condemning both his action and his intention (judging his "conscience") is not only permissible, it's morally required (thus our laws that distinguish between negligent and intentional infliction of harm). Christ forbade us (James 4:12) from claiming a right to judge that the driver (through his action or his intention) is condemned to Hell, but only that Judgement is for God alone.
The Pope’s document about theology and redirection of the Pontifical Academy of Theology turns out to be a more important story than the synod. It seems to be a total repudiation of the theological traditions of the Church; for instance, not a single theological course taught at the institutions that have sponsored the Pillar—Christendom College or University of Dallas—would likely qualify as the kind of “contextual theology” that Pope Francis praises. Nor perhaps any of the work of his predecessor.
Am I overstating this?