LifeSite today looked at what the participants of “Walking Together about Walking Togetherity” are discussing and it fits with what I have written before. The true content of the “W-T” is the process itself. The aim is to make “W-T” a permanent institution. With what they are talking about now, it seems that the process aim at being permanent and all embracing, notwithstanding claims to the contrary.
Before anything else, there’s this bit.
My emphases, comments.
The Synod on Synodality was already extended from one year to two, and finally into a three-year process. But this 2023 session of the event has highlighted how the undercurrent of its themes and ideologies are set to be implemented as a new course of life for the Church.
Participants are asked to discuss what “structures can be developed to strengthen a missionary synodal Church,” and the work of the continental stage of the synod is also highlighted:
Continental Assemblies express a strong desire that the synodal way of proceeding, experienced in the current journey, should penetrate into the daily life of the Church at all levels, either by the renewal of existing structures—such as diocesan and Parish Pastoral Councils, Economic Affairs Councils, diocesan or eparchial Synods—or by the establishment of new ones. (Emphasis added. Worksheet B3.3)
Section B3.5 argues that the synod “is clearly demonstrating that the synodal process[Did you catch that catch-22 type loop?] is the most appropriate context for the integrated exercise of primacy, collegiality and synodality as inalienable elements of a Church in which each subject performs its particular function to the best of its ability and in synergy with others.”
So the Synod (“W-T”) clearly demonstrates that its process justifies its continued existence, continuous process. It’s like a self-licking ice-cream cone.
More from the LifeSite piece, which at each step quotes the “W-T” worksheets, etc.
Note first, that LifeSite points to the claims of those running the “W-T” that while they are discussion how to change the way the church is governed and make concrete those changes, how to involve laity, women in particular, and “walking-togetherity” into all dimensions of the Church, they are nevertheless not intending, de Card Hollerich:
“to question the authority of ordained ministers and pastors: as successors of the apostles, we pastors have a special mission in the Church.”
But he added that “we are pastors of men and women who have received baptism, who want to participate and be co-responsible in the mission of the Church.”
Contradictory?
I think that if they say it is not about questioning the authority of the ordained, it’s about questioning the authority of the ordained.
And there’s this. I can’t make sense out of this at all form Hollerich.
“Where clericalism reigns, there is a Church that does not move, a Church without mission,” said Hollerich. Continuing, he argued:
Clericalism can affect the clergy and also the laity, when they claim to be in charge forever. Clericals only want to maintain the “status quo,” because only the “status quo” cements their power. Mission… impossible!
This is where I am puzzled. I think we have to assume that “clericalism” is what we have had in the Church for all those benighted centuries up to Vatican II… nay, rather, even after!… going back to that magical halcyon period when there wasn’t any clericalism because, well, they were halcyon days of unclerical synodality like when Paul met women at the river during their non-liturgical ritual and they dialogued, etc. So, basically, the Church has been hampered in “mission” for more than a millennium and hasn’t really gotten anything done in missionary terms because, see, clericalism makes mission impossible. See what he did there?
Would he have us believe that there was no mission work going on till, well, perhaps now but surely into the future when we will all be “walking together”?
Today is the Feast of St. Isaac Jogues and St. Jean de Brébeuf, Jesuit clericalists from France.
Do not become confused and imagine that they did any mission work. They are from a time before Vatican II and looong after the halcyon days pristine “W-T”.
No no. Whatever Isaac, Jean and companions were doing in North America, it was not missionary, because without “W-T” that would be impossible.
However, the native peoples whom they disturbed with their clericalism were quite “synodal”. They talked things through together “synodally”, “walking-togetherly”. It was their way, unbesmirched. They made the “synodal” decision to deal with those clericalists.
St. Isaac was synodaled by the Mowhawks. He escaped, clericalist that he was, and then was later more completely synodaled by tomahawk. His role was rethought. St. Jean, who clerically learned Huron (but probably for the sake of dominance rather than actually “talking and walking together”) was synodaled in a non-liturgical ritual by a river in which he was tortured and the participants of local synod drank his blood and ate his heart. As one does. Synodally.
Back to Rome and 2023 and “Walking Together about Walking Togetherity”.
To all the young men thinking about priesthood out there, consider this:
Seminary formation is mentioned, along with a call for training to be given so that future priests “develop a manner of exercising authority that is appropriate to a synodal Church.”
This in turn gives rise to the question of possible, unspecified lay ministry:
To what extent does the shortage of Priests in some regions provide an incentive to question the relationship between ordained Ministry, governance and the assumption of responsibilities in the Christian community?
Wanna see a shortage of priests? Just watch what happens if any of this stuff goes through.
Gentlemen, and young priests out there! If you think that Sr. Dyna on the staff of the seminary runs your life now… if you think that Susan of the Parish Council is a pain in neck now…. just wait.
I’ll wrap up with this.
Section B3.3 of the Instrumentum laboris calls on members to discuss how the laity might become more involved in regular governance and decision making in the Church: “how can we make listening to the People of God the ordinary and habitual way of conducting decision-making processes in the Church at all levels of its life?”
The worksheet also contains a call to alter canon law, thus “rebalancing the relationship between the principle of authority, which is strongly affirmed in the current legislation, and the principle of participation.” [In other words redistribute authority in the Church such that the authority of the ordained is neutralized.]
It is interesting to note that in all of the Instrumentum laboris, the word “pope” appears only four times: thrice when referring directly to Pope Francis by name and once as part of a direct quotation from Evangelii Gaudium.
At all other times, the discussion of a new way of exercising authority refers simply to the “Bishop of Rome,” the title under which Pope Francis has preferred to be chiefly known by. [This opens a can of worms, in my opinion. First, Christ conferred an office on Peter: Vicar of Christ. Eventually Peter got to Rome, having been elsewhere first (e.g., Antioch). Peter was not, at first, “Bishop of Rome”, though he wound up in Rome and died in Rome. The “papacy” is an institution that developed over time. Where am I going? Not sure. But there was a time when there was debate about whether the offices of Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Rome were separable. Authors were divided, most of them on the side that they are inseparable. That has not, as far as I know, been explicitly clarified, though it has been clear in practice. Even in practice, however, there have been tricky times, as when in 537, the Byzantine general Flavius Belisarius entered Rome and deposed Pope Silverius who had been elected the previous year. Belisarius brought in his own guy, Vigilius, and made him Bishop of Rome, Pope, while Silverius was still alive. So, who was the real Pope when both were alive. It was commonly and calmly accepted, down to this day, that Vigilius was a legitimate Pope. He is in the official list. The only reasonable explanation is that be became Pope on the death of his predecessor without any additional election or … whatever. He had the chair and his being in that chair was accepted. Sorry, that’s a digression. What my alarm bell reminds me of is how in Malachi Martin’s Windswept House there was a plot to neutralize the papacy by changing the titles used to describe the Pope. The Pope was to be known not as “Vicar of Christ”, but “Vicar of Peter”.]
But, the document nevertheless presents a contradictory message. It highlights the calls for increased lay roles in ecclesial governance, yet also seeks to downplay this possibility. Section B3.3 states that “co-responsibility in the mission deriving from Baptism must take on concrete structural forms.”
Yet it adds that such “frameworks” should “not be read as a demand for a redistribution of power but as the need for the effective exercise of co-responsibility that flows from Baptism.”
Uh huh.
When they say it is NOT about redistribution of power, it’s about redistribution of power.
Am I wrong?
Loading ...
“Clericalism can affect the clergy and also the laity, when they claim to be in charge forever. Clericals only want to maintain the “status quo,” because only the “status quo” cements their power. Mission… impossible!”
I’d suggest a good way for the good cardinal (and others who would share this talking point) to sincerely and effectively break the “status quo” would be to immediately resign from whatever position or honors or authority he has, fully submit to the orthodox teaching of the church, vest himself in sackcloth and ashes and live out the remainder of his days in silent and obscure prayer and fasting.
After all, I wouldn’t want him to accidentally give the impression that he is trying to remain in charge forever by, you know, continuing to be in charge.
“Insufflatum Caloris” seems about right at this point. I must confess it requires a special level fortitude to read the quotes from these babbling illiterates. My eyes get all blurry after the first sentence, usually. Perhaps that’s the point.
I maintain that this is going to backfire. Participation is a funny thing: unlike political participation, where the participants are stuck whether they like it or not. But participation in a religious institution after the Treaty of Westphalia is really by choice. And the choice they are presenting will just lead the people they are trying to please to leave. So much for that.
“Synodalium” is just another version of “Concilium,” and they didn’t even try to rebrand. They just hauled out the old felt battlestandards, dust and all.
Here’s a few thoughts:
*I would not be opposed to married simplex priests supplementing the shortage. However, if the tomfoolery they speak goes from a bunch of lefty psychobabble to something carrying official weight, you can bet even simplex priests would be in short supply.
*The left would probably love to have Isaac stripped of his sainthood in prder to push the “settlers all bad” narrative. Just look at the campaign of male bovine excrement launched towards residential schools in Canada.
*Ahh, the hilarity of them seeking to alter canon law. If it was altered in a manner that allowed the SSPX to ordain bishops on a whim we’d see the veins in their heads burst a sea of red. Besides, canon law must uphold divine law. If canon law said a priest could tell me I could drink a six-pack of Pabst before driving it would be no law at all.
*If, as I interpreted their language, they say “Bishop of Rome'” and authority are synonymous, they have interpreted Vatican 1 at a level I have never seen. Its like when the Republicans were trying to halt filibustering in the senate years ago…people just assume that their side will hold power forever. I think the end goal is to push radical changes and hope the Pope will just make it so. Obviously they have not looked at the situation in Germany. Pope Francis is of the left, but I can’t consider him a Fr. Reese, SJ either. Hence, perhaps it is the lefties who have made the poorest judgements against his orthodoxy.
I think the vast majority of Catholics, no matter how this goes down, will likely view it as an ignored novelty. Let’s be real here: Card. Cupich has opposed the Biden policy of forcing doctors to perform sex changes. He’s not my favorite cleric by any means, but in charity I must acknowledge his good deeds and positions. The W-T-F might be biting off more than they can chew.
They are trying to turn us into Congregationalists.
I think part of the long game they are playing is that by ruthlessly using papal power in illegitimate ways in order to force through changes that are unpopular and flat out wrong, Pope Francis is simultaneously trying to undermine future papal authority so that his “legacy” can’t be undermined by a future orthodox pope.
I’ve been telling folks that the damage Francis has done to the Church will already take hundreds of years to recover from. If this insanity goes through unchallenged, it could be a lot longer than that.
I know that God, in his providence, has put good men with the necessary talents in the right places to stand up and fight this evil. God help them to find the courage and wherewithal to do the fighting. Otherwise, God have mercy on them. Archbishop Lefebvre showed that it can be done. There won’t be many acceptable excuses come Judgment Day for those who refused to answer the call.
“co-responsibility in the mission deriving from Baptism must take on concrete structural forms.”? Why are they wasting their/our/the Holy Spirit’s time on re-hashing this?! I’m pretty sure this has already been addressed, better, and even more recently than in those heady days of V2. Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975) and Redemptoris Missio (1990) both come to mind, for example. To be “on mission” is the essential character of the Church, and it’s something that we are all responsible for. Let’s maybe actively pursue what these two Conciliar popes had to say on the matter before deciding we need to reinvent the wheel…
Here’s a taste from Redemptoris Missio; maybe folks at the W-T-F need to fire up their devices and bring up some past papal documents on the good ol’ vatican.va site before their synoodling?:
“All the Laity Are Missionaries by baptism
71. Recent popes have stressed the importance of the role of the laity in missionary activity. In the Exhortation Christifideles Laici, I spoke explicitly of the Church’s “permanent mission of bringing the Gospel to the multitudes – the millions and millions of men and women – who as yet do not know Christ the Redeemer of humanity,” and of the responsibility of the lay faithful in this regard. The mission ad gentes is incumbent upon the entire People of God. Whereas the foundation of a new church requires the Eucharist and hence the priestly ministry, missionary activity, which is carried out in a wide variety of ways, is the task of all the Christian faithful.”
This whole ‘synodality’ nonsense is already a train wreck and we haven’t even gotten to the inevitable ‘Spirit of Synodality’ phase yet. Lord have mercy on us!
Fr Z this is all very sad. Disturbing. Francis and his minions are truly attacking the foundations of the Church. These silly documents and statements are not Catholic and will never be acceptable. Almighty God will soon say, “Enough”. The Church will survive Francis and be stronger than ever in its zeal for the care of souls. All his doings will unravel. I doubt any future pope will ever take the name “Francis”.
Bingo!
I was a bit surprised to see that title “Vicar of Peter” in the Collect for the “Common of Pastors, For a Pope” in the Missal when we had Pope John XXIII’s feast day last week.
When they say it is NOT about redistribution of power, it’s about redistribution of power.
Am I wrong?
Yes, it absolutely is about power. But it is NOT simply about the seeming redistribution that is suggested by the language they insert, such as
how can we make listening to the People of God the ordinary and habitual way of conducting decision-making processes in the Church at all levels of its life
The idea they are pretending to push is that “the Church” will listen to “the people” in decision-making process, and that this means that “the people” will, therefore, “participate” in the decision-making. It’s all a lie.
The proof of the lie is the current process itself: at EVERY STAGE AND LEVEL, the process has been managed by a pre-existing managerial class who:
decided who would be invited in to the discussions;
decided who would lead the discussions;
decided who would take the notes and create the summaries;
decided how to consolidate the summaries from many parishes and then many dioceses into “continental” summaries; and
decided how to write the Instrumentum Laboris so as to further their own particular take on things.
At every stage, the people who kept saying things like “we want the Latin Mass back and “but sodomy is an intrinsically evil act” and “since ‘synodality’ was not written into the constitution of the Church by the Apostles, it cannot become the constitution of the Church at a later date” – all these people and viewpoints were sidelined and written out of the process. At no point were these views made part of the process going forward. “The Church” is NOT listening to these views. But “women should be priests”? That view was certainly pushed forward as what “the people” were saying.
Thus the real import of the “synodal way” is to quietly consolidate power into the hands of a core body of people who not only don’t answer to “the people” (because they are not elected, but are appointed), but who are not even known and recognized at large by “the Church” as the power-mongers they are. Unlike clerics who can be recognized by their public ordination and consecration, these people are anonymous behind-the-sedis rulers who decide – without any rules or law guiding them – which portion of what is being talked about shall be recognized as “what the people are saying” and which portion shall be ignored out of existence. (Hint: Pope Francis’ refusal to answer dubia is an example of ignoring the people and commentary he doesn’t want to become part of “the process”.)
The REAL power process is behind the “listening process”, and that power is being consolidated and concealed, not distributed broadly nor made transparent. In fact, the very insistence proclaimed about “not a redistribution of power” is itself a red herring to distract us from the reality of the power consolidation taking place underneath. Pushed by their father below.
The kind of word soup put out by the those in charge of the synod reminds me of a video of a buzzword-loaded word-soup mission statement put out by Weird Al. Werid Al was all about Bizspeak rather than W-T speak, but the principal is the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV_UG60dD4
TonyO is right, non errat.
I hope I don’t get this wrong, but Father Hunwicke once posted about a movement in the Church of England to reconcile with Rome during the Pre-Vatican II period. It was driven by clergy who came to believe the Traditional Mass was the true Mass, many of whom celebrated it privately. Vatican II basically ended the process because the Anglicans did not want to reconcile with a Rome that had turned into Canterbury—they wanted to celebrate the TLM. Why didn’t the reconciliation occur before Vatican II? Apparently, a Catholic Bishop told an inquirer that these Anglican clergy would have been the “wrong kind of Catholics”!
By analogy those, who accept the original deposit of faith as handed by Our Lord to the apostles, would make the synodal walk the wrong kind of walk. It has been rigged and all we can hope for is a miracle.
One is left to wonder why they are always asserting their right to power when it is perfectly evident from the Gospel that the Kingdom of God is achieved with humble submission to His Son, Jesus Christ, True God and true man.
That said, jwcraig11 above asserts they are trying to turn us into Congregationalists…I fear they’ve gone beyond that ambition. They want us to be atheistic inhabitants of Hell.
We are dealing with something far more sinister than we can absorb. I can no longer pretend otherwise.
The Irish citizen in me can’t help but notice that the self-licking ice cream cone is actually a self-licking 99 flake.
I have no opinion on the Synod on Synodality. But I will say that the perpetual discussion machine is a problem nearly all denominations eventually confront. An old joke goes that at an eternal crossroads, there’s a sign that says “Heaven” and another that reads “Discussion about Heaven.”
I remember when someone referred to the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, it was almost heresy. Now they are embracing it.
“All the Laity Are Missionaries by baptism
Wait, I thought Confirmation has a role here. Christ told the Apostles to wait for the coming of the Spirit, and then they began to carry out the mission to others.
They are trying to turn governance in the Church over to an ecclesial version of community organizers.
“We are dealing with something far more sinister than we can absorb. I can no longer pretend otherwise”. I’m with Benedict Joseph.
Bleak resignation is not a good look for anybody. I mean, where do you go from there, but, then again, acceptance of reality is a thing. The destroyers in Rome will likely just continue until a divine intervention or until the last Catholic shuts the door. At this point we see how completely sidelined the laity have been, except for the low-information Catholic. I don’t count the Tickled Ears Catholics looking for new jobs in the church as Catholics. I don’t know what species of person they are there in Rome but mostly they seem like oddies of one type of another. Actual faithful Catholics are not part of this equation, anywhere.
The Latin Rite continues to be the summit of worship on this earth, it’s as good as it gets. The faith is good, pure, and beautiful, but the church has slipped away. Just my opinion. But fidelity to Christ remains and is made more precious by the suffering along the way. God sees how it is.
The Armenian Apostolic Church has a permanent board of laypersons that assist in the governance of the Church.
They have an important advisory role on practical matters like finance & education, but do not address any theological matters.
When the American Armenian lay board was consulted on the greater use of English in the Divine Liturgy, they rejected it.
Indeed, the young people were the most strident about not only retaining Armenian, but expanding its use.
I’m getting really tired of the Shindig on Shindiggity.
All this talk about talking, walk about walking makes me want to go back and read Cardinal Sarah’s The Power of Silence. It’s almost as if he predicted how even more noisy and Babel-esque the Church would become.
I believe the papacy has already been neutralized. The process started with John XXIII, when he refused to condemn error. It picked up speed during the council and then under Paul VI, as things went off the rails…without check from the Holy See. JPII and BXVI didn’t help the matter at all. Why not? They allowed certain forms of dissent to continue, relatively unscathed, especially as they continued the disastrous “ecumenical path” of the council. Enter Frank the Tank, who elicits resistance from almost every corner. When we get a pope who adheres to the True Faith, what will happen? Will he be listened to? Will he be ignored? Since V2, a large section of Catholics have ignored Rome. It is highly likely they will continue.
These synodalists have a real gift for anesthesizing their readers. It appears their object is to numb us into submission.
Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION • BigPulpit.com
The ‘Instrumentum Laboris’ reveals the intentions behind the synod: https://thefivebeasts.wordpress.com/2023/10/25/on-synodality-and-shipwrecks-4-takeaways-from-the-instrumentum-laboris/