On the way back to Rome, Francis was slightly Mongolian grilled when asked about the book that is making waves The Synodal Process ((“walking together”)) Is a Pandora’s Box: 100 Questions and Answers which has a Preface by Card. Burke. All over Twitter/X libs are having spittle-flecked nutties about this book, which is being sent out to all sorts of people.
Full disclosure: I have not read it. It is being sent for free to various folks such as faculties in schools, but not to me. HEY… BOOK SENDERS! SEND ME A PDF!
Here was Francis’ “answer”. Please note – again – the repeated reliance on the undefined label “ideology”. Also, Pentin gives an explanatory paragraph at the end of his tweet. Don’t confuse that with Francis’ “answer”. Well.. you won’t.
NB: Burke’s Preface says that what is at work through all this synod (“walking together”) stuff is an attempt radically to change the Church’s self-understand and her doctrine, proof of which we see in Germany where there is total chaos and division verging on schism.
You can hit the “read more” below, but here is Francis’ “answer”:
I’m not making this up. The whole airplane interview is HERE. The reporter who asked about the book is Antonio Pelayo (Vida Nueva).
“If you go to the root of these ideas, you will find ideologies,” Francis told the reporters. “Always, when one wants to detach from the path of communion in the Church, what always pulls it apart is ideology. And they accuse the Church of this or that, but they never make an accusation of what is true: (it is made up of) sinners. They never speak of sin … They defend a “doctrine”, a doctrine like distilled water that has no taste and is not true Catholic doctrine, that is, in the Creed. And that very often scandalizes. How scandalous is the idea that God became flesh, that God became Man, that Our Lady kept her virginity? This scandalizes.”
A few points.
“Always, when one wants to detach from the path of communion in the Church, what always pulls it apart is ideology.”
That is exactly what is being applied in the SYNODAL (“walking togetheral”) process, not the in the calls for clarity and explanations of how there isn’t being engineered a departure from communion.
And they accuse the Church of this or that, but they never make an accusation of what is true:
Gratis asseritur gratis negatur. Sed Contra, those who are wary of the synodal (“walking togetheral”) process are citing MAGISTERIAL documents, etc. Of course these are precisely the documents, such as Veritatis splendor and virtually the entire magisterium of John Paul II and of Benedict XVI that these synodists (“walking togetherists”) are trying to deep six.
They defend a “doctrine”, a doctrine like distilled water that has no taste and is not true Catholic doctrine, that is, in the Creed
I read this again and again. I ran it by a serious theologian. He seems to think that if something isn’t in the Creed, it is not really “doctrine”. Rather, if it is something that he/they want changed it is labelled “ideology”. It is “distilled water” (which ironically is pure and without contaminants).
And that very often scandalizes. How scandalous is the idea that God became flesh, that God became Man, that Our Lady kept her virginity? This scandalizes.”
Hence, defending doctrines (aka “distilled water ideologies” that are not in the Creed is a source of scandal. Then he shifts over to articles in the Creed which supposedly makes his point. What point that is, I don’t know. It seems to me that there are in fact theologians out there who deny the virgin birth, that Christ really had two perfect natures, etc. They often have SJ by their names. But they are not the one’s leery of the synodal (“walking together”) process. It’s the ones who deny articles of the Creed (BTW… he didn’t say which Creed) who want the synodal process.
In fact, he seems to have turned this whole thing inside out.
It’s sort of like Bearded-Spock Synod (“walking together” … with knives).
Can anyone set me straight here? Where have I misunderstood him?
They defend a “doctrine”, a doctrine like distilled water that has no taste and is not true Catholic doctrine, that is, in the Creed.
What are few doctrines… sorry, gotta get used to this new category… ideologies which are NOT in the Creed (I assume the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed)?
Off the top of my head…
Institution of the Sacraments by Christ
The Assumption of Mary
The Immaculate Conception
Purgatory
Infallibility
Transubstantiation (okay, that’s in Paul’s VI Credo of the People of God)
Original Sin
These are not in the N-C Creed recited at Mass. So, I guess it is, what?, a scandal to defend them? They are either subject to change or they are mere ideologies?
The tweet.
On the flight back from Mongolia, Pope Francis was asked what he thought about the book “The Synodal Process Is a Pandora’s Box.”
In response, he recalled a conversation he had with a Carmelite prioress who told him they were afraid he was going to change doctrine through the… pic.twitter.com/EvzqkUaJwM
— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) September 4, 2023
Folks… I dunno. Can someone explain what I am getting wrong?
BTW, as an exercise, go to the full interview and do a CTL+F search on “ideolog” and see what you get. Among the results:
An ideology is incapable of incarnation; it is only an idea. But when ideology gathers strength and becomes politics, it usually becomes a dictatorship, right? It becomes an incapacity to dialogue, to move forward with cultures. And imperialisms do this. Imperialism always consolidates starting from an ideology.
Loading ...
I guess he means that the Holy Spirit guided the Church up to the N-C councils (300-400 AD?) then abandoned her to ideologies for the next 1700 years or so, but with VII and this “pontificate” He’s back to guiding her again.
To the pope: Do you think those who want the TLM are motivated by ideology?
Francis: Yes
To the pope: Aren’t those in favor of the Novus Ordo also motivated by ideology?
America Needs Fatima/TFP.org (Tradition Family and Property) has ebook download at no cost :)
https://store.tfp.org/the-synodal-process-is-a-pandoras-box-ebook/
I try not to think about what he says, but when I have to I think he just talks out…never mind. Sometimes his words seem random and sometimes they seem perfectly deliberate. To this layperson it seems he has a specific goal in mind ultimately but zigzags his way there in a general direction. He’s got to get us there slowly, don’t make any sudden moves! He says this thing and then that, so you’re never sure what he means. You could always think he means this when he says this thing, but sure enough he’ll soon say the opposite so then you don’t know. Hagan lio, rinse, repeat. Mainly what he appears to be doing is gaslighting, much the way the secular media does now, covering for politicians and other criminals when there is something evil, they try to present it as what it is not, to sway public opinion and convince you you don’t know anything so listen to them at all times if you know what’s good for you, and anyway shut up and leave it to me, the expert.
Francis often accuses others of exactly what he is doing himself. Projection! His efforts seem to be aimed at convincing people that HE’S got the right definition of what is magisterial, doctrine, theology, Truth, etc., and that anything that departs from his definition is trash, very un-Catholicy and anyone who holds these opinions is a backwardist imbecile. Did he make that word up, because I never heard it before Francis. It sounds made up.
I’m flummoxed he mentions sin. He has totally redefined sin and what it is. He only talks about sin when it suits him. My God the man just told Chinese Catholics to “be good citizens”. What kind of sin is it to sell out a whole people who live under Communism and then have the audacity to tell them to be good citizens, when they are suffering because you turned away when it was your job to care for them. Same thing for Nigerians, have a nice day! Remember in cartoons when the character suddenly had their hair stand up and their eyes bug out and their tie went up and down while a kookoo sounded and birds flew around their heads? That’s what I feel like when he says stuff like that, which is why I avoid finding out what he says much of the time.
We’ll get all the clarity in October. ?
He does seem to be saying that “true Catholic doctrine” is the “creed” (Nicene? Apostles’? Both?) … and everything else is up for grabs. TTo me, it seems downright blasphemous to claim that the Holy Spirit is the “protagonist” of the Synod. That’s rich considering that Pope Francis himself handpicked many of the participants. If I gathered a group of my most like-minded friends, I certainly wouldn’t consider their collective opinions as the will of the Holy Spirit. It takes an incredible amount of arrogance and chutzpah to equate something that he himself manufactured with divine will. Has any pope in history come closer to hinting that he’s an oracle of new relevation?
Folks… I dunno. Can someone explain what I am getting wrong?
It’s not you. His speech is specifically designed to confuse and distort the truth while seemingly saying something profound and complicated, that then leaves the average person assuming that the problem of not understanding lies with them as they are not sufficiently intelligent or educated enough to grasp the significance of his words.
It’s known as ‘word salad’ or ‘barffle garble’. Jordan Peterson is the master of this nonsense, a perfect example being the interview where he was asked to define the word truth and waffled on for almost an hour.
They say many words while actually communicating nothing, and leaving the listener more confused than before they opened their big fat mouths. So the fact that you’re baffled means that it worked. Thankfully, once you recognise this nonsense for what it is it no longer affects you, and you also immediately understand that the person talking is an adversary who wishes you ill, which is an advantage.
That whole interview was verbal diahrrea, a mixture of lies, insults, obfuscations, empty rhetoric, confused ruminations…
And there’s that sickening sense of moral and intellectual superiority that drips off his tongue. He hates us, orthodox Catholics.
and the hypocrisy
Incredible to me that in response to a question about his rhetoric about Russia and the czars and the use of it by the Putin government, he went off on an attack on conservative Catholics and their ‘ideology’.
And in response to a question about the destitute, insecure, degraded “peripheries” in Italy (which he supports by fanatically supporting open borders), he avoided the question and immediately changed the subject to the plight of Muslims in Burma.
A real tour de force, this interview.
OED has the derogatory sense used by Bergoglio, of course, but also :
Ideology : 4.4 A systematic scheme of ideas, usu. relating to politics or society, or to the conduct of a class or group, and regarded as justifying actions, esp. one that is held implicitly or adopted as a whole and maintained regardless of the course of events.
Is this not a characterisation of this “Synodality” ?
And I think Bergoglio is projecting his own strong ideological tendencies onto those with whom he is in ideological disagreement.
Whereas John Paul II, who was personally quite Conservative, made sure to provide a strong outreach to the Liberals in the Church ; and Benedict XVI was a Liberal who made similar outreach to the more Conservative.
A Pope should be a proponent of unity through balance, not someone who is continually denouncing this or that faction within Holy Church. Those factions are all Catholic, despite disagreements and oppositions.
The link to the book (free complete pdf) is given in Pentin’s article, https://www.ncregister.com/blog/new-book-warns-of-revolutionary-threat-posed-by-synod-on-synodality in the second paragraph.
This is the first time I have pity on Pope Francis. You engage in attacks against the Blessed Virgin Mary and you are toast.
“Who is she that cometh fourth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?” Song of Solomon 6:9.
The PROTESTants have been doing this since Henry VIII. All the protestant bibles say who is HE. They cast aside the Mother of God, whom all generations shall call blessed.
God help his soul.
A line by Samuel Johnson comes to mind:
“How often stupidity will elude the force of argument, by involving itself in its own gloom; and mistaken ingenuity will weave artful fallacies, which reason can scarcely find the means to disentangle”
The other thing that comes to mind is HP Lovecraft. I find these interviews produce roughly the same level of perplexity as the experience of an eldritch artifact.
The other, other thing that come to mind is “Great Expectations,” and we’re all stuck wheeling around the Miss Havishams of the Vatican II era in these dreadful circles… just making enough sense that nobody believes us when we express our exasperation.
Kathleen10 :
His efforts seem to be aimed at convincing people that HE’S got the right definition of what is magisterial, doctrine, theology, Truth, etc., and that anything that departs from his definition is trash, very un-Catholicy and anyone who holds these opinions is a backwardist imbecile.
Every single major heresy has been based on that very premise.
The train wreck pontificate continues virtually unabated.
Agreed, Kathleen 10! I read one sentence and had to stop, our lose my morning coffee! No, I can’t stomach what he says.
Catholic Herald’s Gavin Ashenden interviews co-author Julio Loredo de Izcue:
On Apple Podcasts
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-catholic-herald-podcast-merely-catholic-with/id1618902864?i=1000626479848
On Audioboom
https://audioboom.com/posts/8360985-is-the-synod-a-pandora-s-box-with-julio-loredo
What this is called is a “tar-baby”. His Holiness throws these out all the time, especially when directly pressed as a distraction or when trying to distract from what he is doing. It is a verbal sophistry and a sleight of hand where he redirects attention, time, and energy onto the tar-baby — which presents itself as a straw-man argument that must be dealt with, but we’re dealing with it results in one becoming more entangled, enmeshed, and stuck, and tared with the false ideas contained therein.
When someone throws a tar-baby rhetorically at you, don’t touch it — that is, refrain from direct argumentation of its points in a direct manner and move on and press the point further.
ie: In response to a question about the book The Synodal Process, His Holiness claimed that people were ideologues who were trying to tear the Church apart because they are cautioning people from joining with those bishops who are trying to make a break from the Apostolic Faith. His Holiness appears to be arguing from the standpoint that Catholic unity is largely dependent upon his will and agenda rather than in conformity to the Faith as given by Christ and as known and expounded upon in continuity by the Apostles, Fathers of the Church, and the Magisterium.
I think we must have made God really mad if we ended up with this pontificate. I wonder if a nice bottle of scotch would work a port wine. Alas.
Dear Fr. Z,
It seems to me that you are trying to make it make sense. Therein is the root of the problem. Pope Francis knows exactly what words and topics are most likely to get an intense reaction from his theological and ideological opponents. He knows exactly how to frame the conflict to make himself look like the faithful follower of Christ and His teachings and his opponents as the legalistic Pharisees. Pope Francis has his destructive, liberalizing agenda and we can all see it. He will use whatever words he deems convenient as tactical window-dressing to that iniquitous end.
I would suggest a more apropos reaction is to simply say “groovy” and move on to more important endeavors.
His mind doesn’t appear to follow clear lines of verbal reasoning, but I think I can follow his drift (‘drift’ being the operative word). He does seems to be saying that the only true doctrines are those expressed in ‘the Creed’. I suspect he means the Apostles Creed, the Nicene is a bit too ‘theological’. Anything beyond that he considers secondary at best and mere academic at worst.
He is then saying that the truths contained in the Creed appear paradoxical and challenging (‘scandalous’) to the human mind — God became man, a mother remained a virgin — these things defy our unaided intellects. That thought is not objectionable in so far as it goes, but this is where his gears really start to slip. He is also saying that we must therefore expect to find confusion and contradiction as a feature of any authentically ‘Catholic’ teaching.
So in his view, those who argue for clarity of doctrine and moral teaching have fallen into a kind of purist ‘ideology’ instead of embracing the contradictory nature of reality. If you are scandalised by what he is doing, you must have forgotten about the messy reality of sin in the world and in our own lives. He thinks we must learn to live with sin (well certain kinds of sin, anyway). To look for perfection is not the truly Christian way (sorry Jesus, you clearly got it wrong!).
There does seems to be a mixture of Lutheransism and half-baked Hegelianism underlying much of what he says. Although I think practical outcomes are far more important to him than intellectual theories. He just wants to throw dust in the eye of everything we’ve been used to, creating a fog of confusion from which he thinks progress in ‘The Spirit’ will arise, dissolving old rigidities and creating a more merciful and inclusive Church. Anyone who doesn’t get with his programme clearly doesn’t understand what it really means to be Catholic, as he interprets it anyway!
I’m much more disturbed by the sycophants who still preen and swoon to curry his favor, especially those in the Papal press corps, as well as those who continue to make excuse after never-ending excuse for him and also those who, to maintain their pretense of being “dignified” and “respectable” dare not dwell too long on the insanity and inanity of his rambles, tirades, and non-sequiturs. One wonders what it would take to shake such as these from their rutted tracks. Is there any statement absurd enough, any action scandalous enough to cause them to finally stand up and say, “No, this is wrong.”? I shudder to think how bad it will have to get before we reach that point, if it even exists at all.
Pingback: VVEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION – BigPulpit.com
@Anneliese says “I think we must have made God really mad if we ended up with this pontificate.”
Actually I think this pontificate brings to the surface what has been brewing in the Church for over 100 years, why St. Pius X had to write his encyclical against Modernism. The masks have come off and we see it for what it is. Perhaps this was a necessary step in the renewal of the Church.