Preparations for the Synod on Synodality are being “welcomed with great enthusiasm,” we are told. And who brings us this good news? Why, the people responsible for those preparations, of course.
To be fair, the Office of the Synod did concede, in its rosy progress report, that the preparatory process, with its countless local meetings and listening sessions, has failed to reassure skeptics. “There is also a certain mistrust among the laity who doubt that their contributions will really be taken into consideration.”
So some people (the folks organizing the process, I’d suggest) are enthusiastic. And others (everybody else) are suspicious. Some people are happy to discuss the process of establishing a process by which the Church should be directed. Others, impatient for actual solutions to the problems that plague the Church, will be frustrated by round after round of inconclusive discussions. Theoretically the preparatory sessions—and eventually the Synod meeting itself—could reinvigorate the Church. But my colleague Jeff Mirus has expressed the skeptics’ reservations succinctly:
But the largest probabilities remain: (a) That the overwhelming majority of highly-committed Catholics will (based on long experience) distrust the process; (b) That those who are fashionably dissident will take the opportunity to remake the Church in their own image; (c) That nearly every expressed concern will be translated by professional ecclesiastics into high-sounding phrases which emphasize inclusion over fidelity; and (d) That the very presence of nearly all suggestions in some final document will, by the planting of small new seeds of infidelity, give added legitimacy to the latest ways in which the Church can become less faithful to her essential mission.
If those predictions strike you as overly pessimistic, consider how for 50 years, references to a vague “spirit of Vatican II” have been used to promote ideas and actions thoroughly at odds with the actual teachings of the Council. Consider how the German bishops’ “Synodal Path” has already embraced radical changes in Catholic doctrine and discipline. Consider how the Office of the Synod has encouraged contributions not only from dissident Catholics and lapsed Catholics but even from non-Catholics. And consider how during the current pontificate, every meeting of the Synod of Bishops has been blatantly manipulated by a clique of liberal insiders, to produce their desired results.
For the Synod on Synodality, the opportunities for manipulation will be multiplied during the two-year preparatory process, with liberal activists given their chances to stage-manage the local meetings, the national meetings, and the regional meetings leading up to the final Synod assembly. Then when the bishops gather in Rome in October 2023, the most important role in the meeting will be filled by a prelate who has been outspoken in his own calls for change in Church teachings.
Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, who was appointed by Pope Francis to be “relator general” for the Synod. He is a Jesuit, like Pope Francis, and he received his red hat from Pope Francis in 2019. Obviously the Pontiff holds him in high regard. In fact, the veteran Vatican-watcher Sandro Magister is convinced that Pope Francis wants Cardinal Hollerich to succeed him on Peter’s throne.
As relator general, Cardinal Hollerich is responsible for introducing the report on which the Synod will base its discussions, and supervising the preparation of a final document when those discussions have concluded. It is fair to expect, then, that the Synod’s final report will be influenced by his own thoughts.
- If you wonder whether Cardinal Hollerich might allow secular ideology to trump Catholic doctrine, consider that he said: “Solidarity, the fact of sharing, of wanting to share riches with the poorest, of respecting human rights: these are the distinctive elements of Christianity.” (The distinctive elements?)
- This is the same Cardinal Hollerich who announced, in an interview earlier this month, that “it is time for us to make a revision” of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, because “the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct.”
- Who said that “ecological conversion” is “a matter of life and death,” and that the drive to reduce carbon emissions is “a profound moral imperative.”
- The same Cardinal Hollerich who argues that undocumented refuges should be welcomed into Europe, but Catholics without Covid-vaccine passports should not be admitted to churches.
- The same Cardinal Hollerich who said: “The change in civilization we are witnessing today is the greatest change since the invention of the wheel.” Who told an interviewer that “we cannot give the answers of the past to the questions of tomorrow,” and that the Church today “must be faster” in adapting to the times. (“Otherwise, we lose contact and can no more be understood.”)
- The same Cardinal Hollerich who said that he would not oppose the ordination of women as deacons, except that “the danger of schism would be great,” because “many bishops would possibly not go along with it.” The same Cardinal Hollerich who said that “The Pope has nothing against conservatives, if they learn from life.”
If conservative Catholics have learned from life, they will remain deeply suspicious of Cardinal Hollerich and of the Synod process in which he plays a pivotal role.
The above comes from a Feb. 16 posting by Phil Lawler on Catholic Culture.org.
“This is the same Cardinal Hollerich who announced, in an interview earlier this month, that “it is time for us to make a revision” of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, because “the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct.” Yeah but the teaching is morally correct, this folks is the end game and of course the corrupt Jesuits are behind it all.
Buckle up, boys. We’re about to see whether the Catholic Church is of divine origin and constitution or just another human creation. It’s had a good run, but will it endure? And no tricks are allowed, like saying Francis isn’t the pope, therefore what happens doesn’t count. Francis is pope, and we’re about to see whether the Vicar of Christ is truly prevented by God from leading the Church into error. Buckle up because it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
OF Cal-Cath editors omitted a comment stating correctly that the Jesuits should be suppressed
I agree. Suppress the Jesuits. This has been done also, in previous historical eras.
And mandate a huge clean-up of their religious order, and all of their schools and universities. How horrible–pro-gay Fr. James Martin, S.J., Cdl. Jean-Claude Hollerich, S.J.
My comment of Feb. 18 at 11:50pm was edited. I said that Hollerich and Martin are “darlings of the Vatican.”
It is the job and the opportunity of the laity to participate in this Synod at the local or diocesan level. Trying to bolster or create mistrust is wrong. It is an offense against God.
You must learn humility.
Bullet point # 1 is taken completely out of context. click the link and read the whole article.
Bullet point #2 This was very confusing but he is not talking about sodomy. Click the link and read it. Of homosexual acts, he said “These were naturally forbidden.”
Bullet point #3 What is the problem? There is nothing non-traditional in that. It is completely in coherence with Church teaching.
Bullet point #4 This also was taken out of context, conflated with another issue (which is traditional Catholicism). there is nothing wrong or un-faithful with what he said.
Bullet point #5 What would be wrong with that? Again, taken out of context.
Bullet point #6 Again taken out of context. Somehow, his consideration of the impact on the Church is being used against him.
This author should worry about his own fidelity to the Church.
Re: bullet point 2. You misunderstand. Hollerich did not say that homosexual acts were “naturally forbidden.” He was asserting that homosexual acts were considered to some extent pagan cultic acts, as far as the New Testament cultural context was concerned, and it is the pagan cultic aspect that he says was “naturally forbidden.” In other words, he’s claiming it’s idolatry that is the sin, not homosexual acts. So he’s attempting to revise Catholic doctrine by claiming that the Church’s teaching about the sinfulness of homosexual acts is historically due to their alleged association with pagan cultic acts, not because they are homosexual acts in themselves. On that basis, Hollerich is claiming that the Church’s teaching against homosexual acts in particular, and by extension its entire teaching about human sexuality being ordered by God towards male and female union and procreation in marriage, is false and needs to be revised to catch up to the new scientific and sociological gods he wants to worship.
What Hollerbach has publicly stated was heretical. Yet no Church authority has rebuked him. And he’s in charge of the synod. Buckle up.
The indefectibility of the Church is going to be tested in 2023. Buckle up.
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths.” —Proverbs 3:5-6
unanonymous, I re-read the quote and I see your interpretation of it.
I think that he is making a distinction between homosexuality and homosexual sex acts (which are sinful.)
You may be correct.
He did not say that sodomy was not a sin.
He did not say that the entire teaching on human sexuality is false.
Hollerich makes no such distinction. The question was ineptly posed, yet rather than make the proper distinctions between homosexual inclinations and homosexual acts Hollerich was off to the races saying that the Church should revise her teaching and it’s time for a fundamental revision of the teaching and how the teaching is false. Hollerich stated his belief, contrary to Catholic faith and doctrine, that homosexual acts and unions are not immoral. If that stance is accepted, then it does change the entirety of Catholic sexual morality: almost everything taught in the Bible and in the Church’s history about sex would have to be discarded.
A careful thinker who wanted to be clear that he was being faithful to Scripture and to Church teaching, would have made the necessary distinctions in his answer to the question. Hollerich didn’t do that. So he’s either not a careful thinker or he doesn’t want to be faithful to Catholic teaching. The man is a careful thinker, so that leaves only the second possibility.
There are wolves in the Church. Some cardinals are wolves.
He did not say that he believed that homosexual acts and unions are not immoral.
It is important not to put words in other people’s mouths.
I agree that he did not speak on this the way that you are I would.
To be clear to any reading this, homosexual sex acts are gravely sinful. So are a lot of heterosexual sex acts.
God plan for your life that does not include these things.
A cardinal of the church said that he believed the church’s teaching was false and needed to be fundamentally changed. That was in response to a question, “How do you get around the Church’s teaching that homosexuality is sin?” What else is an intelligent person to conclude he meant? The cardinal explained how he would get around that teaching: he would fundamentally change it because he thinks it’s false. If he didn’t mean that he personally does not believe homosexual acts and unions are sinful, then what did he mean? He meant something. I think it’s clear what he meant, and I’ve explained it.
Is he trying to play the same game as Fr. James Martin?
Since when do priests and cardinals play catch me if you can with their doctrinal ambiguity? They are supposed to be unfailingly clear and stalwart.
Kevin T, the question was “How do you get around the Church’s teaching that homosexuality is a sin?” He said “I believe that this is false.”
Homosexuality is not a sin if defined as same sex attraction. It is acting on it or indulging in sexual fantasies about it that is sinful.
Sexual relationships are always immoral unless in a sacramental marriage.
He is seemingly concerned about Church employment of both gay persons and person who are divorced and remarried.
Let’s not accuse of something he did not do, especially owing that this is a translated interview, not an official position.
You are reading into it what you want it to say.
You are exactly right Kevin. This bishop keeps dancing around whether sodomy among men is sinful. If our Lord told men just looking at a woman in lust is a serious sin, surly he meant the same for men lusting after men and women lusting after women. People have to put such thoughts (fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy or bestiality) out of their heads immediately after they enter. We all admire another’s beauty, but thoughts become sinful when we lustfully dwell on them and worse when we act upon them.
I accidentally gave you a thumbs down.
Are you familiar with Vigilius? Liberius? Honorius?
Hollerich and his “gang” are not the True Church, established by Christ. When do they ever consult Our Lord, in many long days and years, of deep prayer, to ask of Him: “What do You want of YOUR Church?” Don’t ask poor, dumb, sinful human beings. Ask God.
OOC – thank you for taking the time to analyze the article with good critical thinking skills.
Bishop Hollerich says in one of the blue links that sodomy was forbidden, but goes on to say that he thinks the premise for forbidding it now is wrong. He says people used to think that the whole child was in the sperm then fails to mention what a dangerous misuse of another person’s body sodomy has always been. It tears up that part of the body most often used and causes injuries that leave that part of the body more open to serious diseases than in a normal heterosexual marital act. Including are colon and anal cancers besides more less common STD’s.
The blue link in the above article to which I referred in my last post is “It is time for us to make a revision of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality”.
Homosexuality. Not sodomy.
I never heard that bunk about the baby being in the man.
I have serious doubts that that is why sodomy was forbidden.
I think it was a misuse of the sexual gift and that is why it was forbidden.
And not just among Christians.
I have never heard of such a thing either, and I have read a lot of archeology and religion books and magazines down through the years. Anyway, it makes no connection at all as to why sodomy would be wrong. It simply is an injurious, disease producing activity and a misuse of the body, thus a perversion.
” In fact, the veteran Vatican-watcher Sandro Magister is convinced that Pope Francis wants Cardinal Hollerich to succeed him on Peter’s throne.” On the assumption that Francis does not live to see his particular vision of the Church realized in full, it makes sense that Sandro would have such a conviction. For one can justly ask: do Hollerich’ convictions embody the realization of Francis’ vision for the Church?
There is a really good article today, Feb. 18, in “LifeSiteNews,” all about the 2006 doctoral dissertation of Msgr. Florian Kolfhaus, a member of the Vatican’s diplomatic service, which influenced the Vatican’s 2009 decision to lift the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops. Vatican II was a pastoral Council, not a
doctrinal one. It was decided that it is possible for a Catholic to be in good standing with the Church, while at the same time, criticizing some statements of the Council, since they were not binding on the conscience of a Catholic. I think this doctoral dissertation, and the whole news story around it, ought to be widely publicized, and made available to all Catholics, clergy and laity. Maybe Calif. Catholic Daily can publish this news story. Here is the link:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/this-dissertation-on-vatican-ii-influenced-romes-decision-to-lift-the-excommunications-of-the-sspx-bishops/
Ignoring the fact that the SSPX refuses to join the Catholic Church and that the excommunications were not about diagreeing with Vatican II. They were for ordaining bishops without Papal approval-which any bishop gets excommunicated for doing. And those who accepted the illegal ordination were also excommunicated.
Can. 1013 No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate.
As jon sham surely tell you, Vatican II is surely binding on the faithful. custodes was a response to those in the TLM who say it is not binding.
Since Vatican II defined no new dogmas or doctrines, and was explicitly purely pastoral, there’s nothing binding on the faithful, other than the normal respect and assent to its teachings that do not contradict all prior magisterial teachings.
Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), Vatican II’s constitution on the liturgy, called for “tweaking” the Mass. It did not in any way call for an all-new, from-the-ground-up liturgy invented by a committee led by a freemason and “advised” by a half dozen protestants. If SC had done so, the council fathers would never have voted for it. Read it for yourself.
SC never called for an all-new calendar, an all-new lectionary, an all-new replacement for the Divine Office, all-new sacramental rituals, … none of it. It contained a lot of ambiguous statements, but the vast majority of the fathers that voted for it at the time could never have imagined replacing the venerable Roman Rite with something as banal and man-centric as the Novus Ordo Missae.
Some churchmen still debate whether a sitting Pope (Paul VI in this case) has the legitimate authority, by his own fiat, to replace a 1600-year-old liturgical tradition. He can tweak it. He can make minor alterations to it. But cancel it?
Paul VI used BLM’s playbook to memory-hole the Catholic Mass. It was the greatest act of liturgical vandalism in the history of the world.
This is one of those posts where error-filled people (possibly schismatic-certainly using their thoughts) is expressed so confidently that it could lead faithful Catholics astray.
Let’s just start with the biggest error. The Roman Rite was not replaced.
There are no churchmen who debate whether Paul VI as Pope had the authority to issue a new missal.
If you think there was a 1600 year liturgical tradition, you don’t even realize why Pope Pius V issued the Missal after the Council of Trent.
Don’t listen to people in mortal sin. Mr. Bill, if you are in schism from the Holy Catholic Church, repent.
If you a faithful Catholic who has unwittingly fallen for the lies of schismatics. please educate yourself and repent.
I don not think Paul VI had even heard of BLM. I don’t think the people who started BLM were even born.
After the Council of Trent, St. Pius V was moved to eliminate the deformations that had crept into the Mass in regions affected by the protestant revolution, and to consolidate the remaining variants into a single, uniform Missale Romanum.
In his bull “Quo Primum”, Pius V definitively forbade all future tampering with the Roman Rite.
Paul VI clearly violated this law.
Liturgy starts with God specifying what is to be said and done … then organically evolves under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. But words fail when describing the audacity of people like Annibale Bugnini, and “liturgy-by-committee” … which essentially admits to knowing better than God … the result being Eucharistic Prayers cooked up at the last minute in Roman trattorias … or replacing a 1200-year-old Offertory with a Jewish meal blessing … just because.
There are many churchmen who, like me, try, but have trouble seeing a “hermeneutic of continuity”. Facts get in the way. The Novus Ordo retains less than a third of the orations and readings of its venerable predecessor. And every objection listed in Cardinal Ottaviani’s Intervention of 1969 is still valid.
As Fr. Altman says: “God gave us a brain — let us use it”. Salvific truths shouldn’t require us to suspend our faculty of reason.
St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Pius V, and all ye doctors and saints …
…orate pro nobis!
‘repent’ — let’s connect the dots from Paul VI to BLM:
BLM’s propensity to pull down (memory-hole) monuments is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook “Rules for Radicals” (though the Bolsheviks popularized and perfected the practice).
Did you know that Alinsky dedicated his book “to Satan, the original radical”?
Did you know that book was a favorite of the young Barack Obama?
Now go look up how many times Cardinal Giovanni Montini (the future Pope Paul VI) invited and met with Saul Alinsky in Rome.
Was Montini trying to convert Alinsky from atheistic communism to the Catholic Faith?
Or was it the other way around…?
By their fruits, ye shall know them.
MrBill, why does this same dumb stuff keep making the rounds of the Internet?
Don’t believe this junk.
Stay away from it.
Stick to Church sources.
I am not suggesting that anyone read this article, because of the the case of the SSPX bishops. Instead, I think the doctoral dissertation has something important to say, for all Catholics, clergy and laity. Other Catholic theologians have said the same things as what is in this doctoral dissertation. I have always thought, in particular, that the post-Conciliar Church should stand proudly for Christ’s true teachings, which have been transmitted faithfully to us, down through the ages. I accept the basic teaching, “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” in a way to mean, that we should present Christ’s teachings correctly to the world, invite others to come join us– but also, be respectful, kind and loving, to those who disagree. Maybe later, they will change their minds. It is in God’s hands. And we do not need a “protestantized” liturgy, nor to adopt any Protestant ideas– that is wrong. That is what I believe.
bishops, YFC, and everyone– Good idea to read this article carefully. Forget the part about the SSPX and bishops, etc. etc. The doctoral dissertation is very clear and very logical. It has huge implications for all Catholics. There is much more going on all the time at the Vatican than we will ever realize. There are many fine Catholic theologians who have had the same ideas as what is in this dissertation. Be honest. See what you think. No, a faithful Catholic can disagree with some statements of Vatican II. One must very carefully and clearly consider a very important basic, ancient Church teaching: “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” vs. “ecumenism” and how it has been proposed, at the Council, and beyond…
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”. Of course. Obviously. What is your problem with ecumenism?
There are very many statements in Vatican II documents that cannot be disagreed with unless you are a heretic.
I don’t think that you should make such a scandalous statement.
Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love
Dei Verbum
In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle; we sing a hymn to the Lord’s glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ, until He, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with Him in glory.
Sacrosanctum Concilium
Read the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium.)
Better to see the truth than to be afraid of it. Always stick with Jesus Christ, not erroneous clerical leaders. No, you do not have to agree with the Vatican, like a scared fool, when its clerical leaders go in the wrong direction, against Christ’s teachings– as Vatican-praised, pro-gay Church leaders, Abp. Hollerich and Fr. Martin do– and as wrongful, radical pro-Protestant ecumenists have done, since the Council. Always follow Christ, no matter what– not misguided human beings in positions of clerical power. That is what I believe. The true Church leader is Christ Himself. The true Christ would rebuke an Abp. Hollerich, a Fr. Martin, or a radicalized Protestant ecumenist.
Let him who is without synod
stone the first caste