It may be fair to say that progressive and dissident Catholics are feeling a bit giddy right now. They may view the upcoming Synod on Synodality as Vatican II, Part II. I may be wrong about this, but I don’t think I am wrong.
Many progressive and dissident Catholics were unhappy with Vatican II. They feel Vatican II did not really result in any significant changes. And now they seem determined to use the Synod to make the BIG CHANGES in Church teaching they tried, and failed, to bring about at Vatican II.
This my takeaway after reading an article by dissident Catholic Sister Joan Chittister at the also dissident National Catholic Reporter. The article is titled “Nothing really changed after Vatican II. But synodality may make a difference.” The title lets the cat out of the bag.
It’s been said many times that traditional Catholics felt Vatican II went too far. At the same time, progressive Catholics felt it did not go far enough. And we are now hearing this mantra again from Sister Joan.
Vatican II
Sister Joan’s view of Vatican II might be summed up in the sixth paragraph of her article.
“Oh, a few churches redesigned their confession boxes and a few more took down the altar rails, but really, other than that and the move to the vernacular in all liturgical events — nothing much did happen. Most of the changes were window dressing.”
Sister Joan may be deliberately understating what took place following Vatican II. Or maybe she really believes “nothing much did happen.” Traditional Catholics, however, might vehemently disagree with both views.
She then asks the question, why did nothing change, and proceeds to answer her question. In her opinion, “the 2,000-2,500 bishops from around the world who attended this 21st ecumenical council voted yes for all of its documents, but once back on home soil, many simply ignored them, that’s why.”
On top of this, she says, “But both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI resisted the full force of Vatican II. Though they never denounced the council, they never really promoted it either.”
Apparently, all the writings of both Popes explaining the documents of Vatican II were meaningless. Explaining and clarifying is not promoting, according to Sr. Joan.
The Time is Now
But the Synod can rectify things, she opines.
“This synodality is different. This time, Pope Francis is having the faithful themselves become part of the agenda-making process before the synod even convenes.
“This time, the laity themselves have been deemed to determine what topics must be considered — married priests, genderism, marriage theology, equality, women priests, whatever.”
And then the dissident progressive spirit burst forth in all its glory.
“Two weeks ago,” wrote Sister Joan, “I sat in front of my television for several hours and listened to the topics each of the dioceses wanted addressed at the synod in Rome. One at a time, representatives from the entire region read out the topics and the numbers of their groups who most wanted particular topics to be considered by the modern church at this new conciliar process called “synodality.”
“I got a chill. I was listening to a drumbeat of human issues that were separating people from the church, from support, from holiness in this day and age.”
There you have it. The Synod on Synodality is giving dissident Catholics the shivers. They view it as their big chance to make some REAL changes. And given the rhetoric coming out of the Vatican the last few years, it’s possible they may get their wish.
The Agenda
Randall Smith, a Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, recently offered his opinion of the North American “Final Document” for the “Synod on Synodality” at The Catholic Thing. He wrote, “This synodality “Final Document” is like a university mission statement lacking any substantive vision of educational excellence. Without that substance, such a document provides neither meaningful guidance nor the means to restrain administrative misbehavior. They usually serve as an all-purpose cloak of legitimacy for whatever the administration chooses to do.”
I hope the North American Document is not typical of the seven continental documents that will be used to draft the Instrumentum Laboris. If it is, the Instrumentum Laboris (due to be released this month) ought to make for some interesting reading. This is the document that will be the agenda for the general assembly taking place in October.
But take a closer look at Prof. Smith’s contention. If a “document provides neither meaningful guidance nor the means to restrain administrative misbehavior” then it can “usually serve as an all-purpose cloak of legitimacy for whatever the administration chooses to do.”
Prof. Smith is not alone in this concern. Fr. Raymond de Souza raised it before the Synod even started.
“Who would decide whether a “consensus” has already been achieved, whether a vote was necessary as “a last resort” or whether to anoint a particular position as having been “resolved with an additional discussion”? It would likely be Cardinal Grech and the managers of the synod secretariat.”
Control
As anyone who has ever worked for a large organization of any kind knows, this is all too true. The person who calls a meeting, sets the agenda, and controls the documentation distributed from the meeting, is in total control of the outcome. So, insofar as the Synod goes, “whatever the administration chooses to do” is what will be done.
And make no mistake, progressive and dissident Catholics are controlling the Synod. They do not even hide this fact. As the April 4 press release on the Synod announcing the inclusion of the laity at the Synod states, “This choice is in continuity with the progressive appropriation of the constitutive synodal dimension of the Church and the consequent understanding of the institutions through which it is exercised” [emphasis added].
So once again progressive, dissident Catholics are going to take a shot at changing Church doctrine. Doctrine on marriage, sex, contraception, women deacons, and priests, and more, are all in their crosshairs.
A Prediction
I’m not that good at predicting the future, but I did get a prediction right that I made in 2016. The Cubs did win the World Series and we still do not have a devout Catholic president. So, I’m going to try again.
I predict that the Synod will urge several changes in Catholic doctrine. These changes will be offered as needed changes. The Synod organizers will say these changes are the result of the Holy Spirit working in the Church. And it won’t make a bit of difference to them that God’s truths cannot be changed.
Sister Joan ends her article saying, “May this council truly begin what the world is waiting for lest the Catholic world gets stopped in its tracks by those who do not want the church to grow with the world.”
But she has it exactly backwards. It’s the world that needs to grow with the Church, not the Church that needs to grow with the world.
Pope Francis will have the final say on what happens following the Synod. But he will need to be able to see through the smoke of Satan that has entered the Church. Pray that the Holy Spirit gives him the ability to see through the smoke.
12 thoughts on “The Synod on Synodality Cat is Out of the Bag”
Gene,
Keep writing, keep telling us the truth. The Christian conscience is sleeping.
I caught a news blurb somewhere this morning about some German Bishops who will NOT support the Synodal changes. The article indicated this is a big setback to those supporting the changes..
What I want to see in our church is a clear, concise, definitive NO to all of their ridiculous, leftist progressive demands and then END OF DISCUSSION from now on. No more bites at this apple because this continued discussion is the problem….GOD’s laws are SETTLED as the left wingers love to use that term….NO more debates are needed on the moral law and I pray to Lord Jesus, Our Blessed Lady, Saint Joseph, St Michael and all the Saints and Angels to protect our church and guide this Pope down the PATH OF TRUTH who is Christ. I trust Jesus will not leave us abandoned at this critical time…..
The good news is that Jesus is coming back to make things right!
Pingback: MONDAY AFTERNOON EDITION – Big Pulpit
The “church” that Our Lord and Savior left behind at His Ascension is clearly not what we have today.
From what I have read, the current pope is likely to proceed with the synod changes.
Indeed, Satan has infiltrated the RCC. We are in the midst of a spiritual war.
This sounds like the radical leftist theological socialist liberals are attempting to force their heretical views on the Roman Catholic Church. They are attempting a theological revolution which is anti-Scriptural and anti-Christ. They appear to reject the historical Gospel message of Jesus the Christ. Yet. we have Christ’s promise “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against His holy Church” To this end be Christ Jesus be praised!
“Sister Joan may be deliberately understating what took place following Vatican II. Or maybe she really believes “nothing much did happen.” Traditional Catholics, however, might vehemently disagree with both views.”
Say what ! Seventy percent of the once “faithful” walked out. How can that be?
This is why the Church alone in Africa in numbers presently is bigger than the Church was in 1960?
And in all seriousness folks, we are all part of one body but at the same time, our American contingent of Catholics is not huge.
I don’t really want to see major changes, I do keep an eye on the future too and how it will be down the road, 40 years from now, etc.
I wanted to jot down a few examples of what our local “Woman Priests” have been saying for the last couple years, but I quickly became overwhelmed by such a daunting task; therefore I have chose only 5 to represent how they view the Church’s non-conformity with their demands:
1. “…this act of Eve’s caused all children born from then on to be born in sin—kind of a hereditary disease of sort. Thus, the church’s teaching on “original sin.” This bizarre idea was an answer to why, thousands of years later, people made poor choices and acted badly – they sinned.”
2. “Trinity. The celebration of “one god in three persons: an old man, a scapegoat, and a bird.” Talk about naiveté! That is still going strong after 2,000 years of so-called advancement! I mean, even with all the theological definitions that stretch the concept beyond its elemental simplicity, this is a hard philosophy to swallow! So let’s not swallow it… Karl Marx wasn’t far off when he labeled religion as the opiate of the masses.”
3. “The early Gnostics were condemned as heretical, and outside of a few fingerprints here and there, such as in the Gospel of John, many of the texts were destroyed or moved underground, especially in the late fourth century when the Library in Alexandria was destroyed by Christian zealots. …I have hope each day in a new discovery of an ancient collection, like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library, that will open our minds even further. We have been fed a very narrow version of the Christian story… We simply need eyes to see and ears to hear the signs all around us.”
4. Marriage is a not sacrament (invented in 12 century)
5. Mary as the New Eve – this theology is problematic on a number of levels, the most obvious being that two rigid categories developed for women – saint or sinner, nothing in-between.
Personally, if I were Pope, I would invite tons of these people, and give them the microphone. Sometimes winning the debate means letting the opponent do all the talking.
This is not a criticism but only pointing out that the idea of calling Mary the “new Eve” is a very old idea. Not that wikipedia is an ultimate and definitive authority but even that source reads that in the article on the New Eve: “(Latin: Nova Eva) is a devotional title for Mary mother of Jesus. It is perhaps the most ancient doctrinal title given to Mary in the Early Church. ” One may see the whole article for more citations. I know I see it in print from time to time.
Thank you for your comment, Faithful. What I find laughable is the need for a category between sinner or saint (or male or female), but obviously it illustrates that an agreement to womans ‘ordination’ will never lead to an end of their demands.
Here’s a few more gems:
“…two prominent contemporary scripture scholars, discuss the merits of the Epiphany. According to their research and understanding, Matthew’s story of the three wise men from the East who travel to Bethlehem led by a star is not historically factual. There was no special star, no wise men, and no plot by Herod to kill Jesus.”
“We believe in our Kinship with Jesus, not the Kingdom of Jesus.”
“we will never find our way through the narrow gate by becoming an elite group of chosen ones who now have a lock on the truth. This is the mistake religious groups have made repeatedly over the centuries. It is the mistake the US Roman Catholic Church is making today by excluding anyone who does not fit into their tightly defined box.”
“In fact, Jesus did not claim to be a king, the title was first given to him sarcastically by those who wanted him killed –- this was symbolically depicted in the Scriptures by the purple garment and crown of thorns.”
“I came to understand that Jesus did not bestow power on anyone, including Peter. Jesus did not create a Church.” [yet she is a victim because the church has no “womanpriests”, OK?]