As the synodal sessions in Rome approach their half-time break, participants are preparing to vote on the text of an interim report on their work. The assembly has also decided to issue a “Letter to the People of God” — a novelty, given the make up of the institution.
The synodal assembly’s decision to address the whole Church on its own behalf is remarkable for a body which exists as a consultative help to the pope, and whose conclusions are meant to be subject to his discernment and authority.
Do attendees in Rome see themselves as dependent on Francis for legitimacy? Or is the body now setting itself up as its own voice, separate from the pope, and pursuing its own agenda?
If the latter, does it risk deepening the ecclesiastical divides the synodal process was meant to heal?
Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck of the Diocese of Essen used a synodal press conference Saturday to praise the German synodal way, which concluded recently despite consistent criticism from the Vatican and Pope Francis.
The bishop offered the German process as a model for the Church, despite Rome and the pope having said it not truly synodal at all, but an elitist and self-appointed institution aimed at supplanting the Church’s hierarchy.
That notwithstanding, Overbeck said, the German process was particularly suited to the “post secular” situation of the Church in Germany, but also as a template for the synod to break with “habit and tradition” and explore “other solutions” for living the “ecclesial spiritual experience.”
The bishop also nodded to the creation of a permanent synodal assembly — a plan which the Vatican has repeatedly opposed. According to Overbeck, the focus of the synod should be (as it was in Germany) for institutional reform “to make the Christian proclamation credible.”
As a statement of purpose, it is not novel; the German synodal way has been making this same case for several years.
It is unusual that Overbeck and other synodal delegates have made these arguments in Rome as the synod discusses the themes of “participation, governance, and authority,” but without seeming to pay much attention to Francis’ own thoughts on the subject….
From The Pillar
The synod is not a synod. It has no legitimacy nor authority. It is an utter waste of time and money. The pope just shot down forever the idea of women deacons. Shooting down approving homosexual sex and unions is next. I don’t care what these Call to Action rejects think the People of God need to hear from them. I don’t want to hear anything they have to say. Who are they to judge?
When presenting the “German Synodal Way,” at the Synod on Synodality recently, Bishop Overbeck stated that in his 14 years as Bishop of Essen, in Germany, they have “almost no seminarians” any more. He said that in his 14 years as Bishop, he has “buried 300 priests, and ordained 15.” He said that he believes that the German Synodal Way– condemned by the pope and Vatican– is an answer to the needs of the Church in today’s “post-secular” modern Germany. His diocese has been in a sharp decline since about 1970. Last year, in 2022, an unusually high number of Catholics in his diocese formally left the Church– a little over 14,000 of them. In 1970, about 44.1% of the population of Essen was Catholic. But today, only 26.6% of the population is Catholic. Bishop Overbeck has also been controversial for his handling of sex abuse cases.
The German way is a model for destruction. You can sleep (I mean, have sex) with whomever and still get your coupleness blessed and receive Holy Communion. Yet, if you fail to pay the church tax, no sacraments for you! (Didn’t they learn anything from Tetzel and Luther and Canon Law, which prohibits charging for sacraments?) The German Church is dying. They are affluent because of tax dollars. Listen to the Church where it’s growing, like Africa. Most Catholics world-wide face much more important and challenging issues than those being addressed by this synod.
These Germans must be living in their own fantasy. I’d quicker take Martin Luther over these freaks.
Here is the letter.
You will see that it has nothing to do with the German Synodal Way.
This article is confusing and conflating two different things.
It does point out that it is unusual for a Synod assembly to issue a letter to the whole Church (and maybe it is not appropriate.)
But you will see when you read it, that it is nothing different from what the Synod materials have said from the beginning.
https://www.synod.va/en/news/letter-of-the-xvi-ordinary-general-assembly-of-the-synod-of-bishops-to-the-people-of-god.html
Thank you. I was almost deterred from reading the letter by the salutation that began, “Dear sisters, dear brothers.”
Then I read the whole letter and regretted it. Should have stuck with my hunch not to read it.
Blather. Corporate jingoism. Buzzwords. A strained and contrived optimism. Nothing of substance communicated. Encouragement to continue the listening.
I ask, “Why?”
It struck me that they want to hear from parents who are the first evangelizers of their children, and from priests, deacons and bishops.
I read the letter. There is nothing controversial in it. It is well written, it is a simple explanation of the process, and what is needed in the next twelve months.
The whole world is falling apart. The United States is on the verge of social and economic collapse or civil war. The Catholic Church is looking feckless. It’s enough to make one lose faith in everything.
Look at the world with the eyes of faith and it looks very different.
I now have a net negative outlook on the future of the church in the United States. I had hoped, barely. I had clung to hopeful signs, but no more. hope has been relentlessly pounded by reality and national and world events. I think it won’t get better for a long, long, long, long time, if ever. certainly not within my lifetime. the younger generation has all but abandoned the church. this realization that I’ve come to is very depressing. it’s over.
You are not just missing hope, but also faith.
The Church cannot end.
If you understand the Church, you will understand why.
When I was reverting, things like pamphlets from the Christophers, Our Sunday Visitor, Catholic Digest, Word Among Us- all things they put in the newspaper, magazine and pamphlet racks at Church were very helpful.
I read the Bible cover to cover but most of it made no sense to me. I had an old Baltimore Catechism and an old Missal.
Going back to Church was a profound, immersive experience.
I had so many questions and people were patient with me.
I do not know if anybody at the Synod has experience with those ministries and that was not the kind of thing asked about on the surveys.
You can try reading Catholic Updates.
Today, I read in several Catholic news sources, that Fr. Marko Rupnik, an ex-Jesuit and filthy sex abuser of many women, including several nuns, was recently incardinated into a diocese in his native Slovenia, the Diocese of Koper. That is so hard to believe. What happened to the Vatican’s “zero tolerance” of clerical sex abusers policy? This situation sounds extremely serious, to me. Are there any clerics like Rupnik, at the Synod? Any dangers, to Synod participants?
I’ll pull a jon here and point out the technicality that Father Rupnik has never been convicted of any civil nor canonical crime pertaining to sexual abuse. Therefore you must not criticize his pastoral assignment as a parish priest. Do not judge nor condemn the man when he has not been found guilty in a trial. Obey the living magisterium. Submit to its decisions. Be a missionary of mercy.
Where did you read that he was assigned to a parish?
The excellent reporters at OnePeterFive said so:
https://onepeterfive.com/pope-protects-abuser-priest-now-returning-to-a-parish/
This decision is making former Francis defenders think again about their support for the pope.
I thank you to the link to the article.
It says it in the headline. It does not say it in the article. You would think it would and would name the parish that he was assigned to, if it were true.
Perhaps they think being incardinated in a diocese means that. It does not.
Also, with their comparison to Pope Benedict XVI, they maybe do not realize, or do not realize the significance of, the fact that none of Rupnik’s victims were minors.
He was expelled from the Jesuits for disobedience to his superior.
Just like the cases at Franciscan University, there really is not a sanction for sexually or spiritually abusing adults.
Honestly, we have been complaining about this since the Dallas Charter.
I warned my child when he turned 18 to watch out because they don’t get in trouble for messing with legal adults.
Adults have to use the same process as with anyone else. Report them to the police.
No it doesn’t make me and others rethink about supporting the Pope. This is fake Catholic news from the extreme right. It’s worth nothing.
On the Vatican website, on Oct. 27, it was stated that the Pontifical Commision for the Protection of Minors brought to the Pope’s attention, in September, that there were very serious problems in the handling of the Marko Rupnik case, and a serious neglect of outreach to victims. His sex abuse victims’ cases extended back to over 40 years. Plus, more victims came forward with their cases. So the Pope decided to lift the statute of limitations to allow the case of Rupnik to proceed, and asked the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith to re-open and review Rupnik’s case. Rupnik has been accused of sexually, psychologically, and spiritually abusing 20 women and at least one man, over a 40-,year period.
Look at this bad priest’s very serious, past criminal history– read it fully. Even secular non-religious agencies are upset with this horrific decision. It is highly important to protect the public from all possible dangerous, evil criminal activity! Everyone knows this is an extremely irresponsible decision– very typical of many immature and irresponsible Catholic clerics in power, falsely protecting and furthering the clerical sex abuse criminal epidemic– endangering millions, globally. A great many of Rupnik’s sex abuse victims, including nuns and lay women, have been begging the Vatican for years, for proper help with the crimes of Rupnik– but the Vatican has refused to take them seriously. He was previously excommunicated by the Vatican, for serious sex abuse crimes to victims in the Sacrament of Confession– but then, the next day– he was re-instated, apparently by the pope– a “slap on the wrist.” He was restricted in priestly duties by the Jesuits, due to his clerical sex abuse crimes– but was finally kicked out of the Jesuits, for violating these restrictions placed on him. You have to approach serious crimes and protection of the public, like a grown-up.
Catholic homeschool suppliers have good resources for parents.
From the letter: “As Pope Francis requested two years ago, a long process of listening and discernment was initiated, open to all the People of God, no one being excluded, to “journey together” under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, missionary disciples engaged in the following of Jesus Christ.”
Yet I have the feeling that some people were excluded, namely, those who attend the TLM. These people have not only been excluded but disparaged by Pope Francis himself. Later on the letter reads:
“To progress in its discernment, the Church absolutely needs to listen to everyone … It means listening to those who have been denied the right to speak in society or who feel excluded, even by the Church…”
Conservative voices have been stifled by the media and especially by academia. TLMers certainly feel excluded and even persecuted by the Church. It would have been gracious of the writers of this letter to acknowledge these melancholy facts. Then too, as the Church is getting mowed down in the culture wars, it would been nice to read something that addresses this sad reality. The emphasis of the letter is so much on listening that it seems unsure of itself when it comes to challenging non-Christian forces at work in the world. Thus we have the following:
“Our assembly took place in the context of a world in crisis, whose wounds and scandalous inequalities resonated painfully in our hearts, infusing our work with a particular gravity, especially since some of us come from countries where war rages. We prayed for the victims of deadly violence, without forgetting all those who have been forced by misery and corruption to take the dangerous road of migration.” All this is good as far as it goes, but where is there any call to the ungodly for conversion?
Not a perfect letter, to be sure. But it faithfully reflects the mind of Pope Francis, as is inevitable.
TLM goers were not excluded. They have been excluding themselves.
” They have been excluding themselves.” Let’s consider their predicament. Under Benedict, these sheep found rich pasture in the Mass of the Ages, as I have heard it called. It met their soul’s desire better than the Novus Ordo, and they were flourishing in the more contemplative setting. Suddenly there arose a pope that didn’t know Benedict (with apologies to Ex. 1:8) who scorched their green pasture with Traditionis Custodes, calling these sheep backward, rigid, and other pejorative things all because they found pasture where Francis supposed they could not find and should not find. These sheep find themselves deprived of that which they held most precious and could not understand why the grace of Benedict was replaced by the hostility of Francis. They felt excluded by Francis simply for seeking God, which is their spiritual duty. Now they are told they are excluding themselves from the Church and by virtue of that the graces flowing from the Church. Yet they still experience the grace of God through the TLM and consider that a sign that they are not excluding themselves from Divine Mercy, and that a good shepherd would recognize this and return to the grace shown by Benedict. So they wait for the mind of Francis to coincide more perfectly to the mind of Christ. This is considered “excluding themselves.” I wonder.
You left out the part about numerous bishops informing Pope Francis that parish TLM groups in their dioceses were setting themselves apart from the rest of the parish, in some cases denying elements of Vatican II’s teaching, in some cases disparaging the new Mass, and in some cases harboring and engendering anti-Francis sentiments. Pope Francis issued Traditionis custodes for the sake of Church unity, to stop the weaponization of the TLM against the Vatican II Church. Benedict’s permission for expanding the celebration of the TLM had unintended negative consequences that Francis is trying to fix.
“You left out the part about numerous bishops…” Yes my case was selective, but I find it interesting that you and I said similar things once or twice. I said these preferred the TLM over the Novus Ordo as it met their needs better. You said they disparaged the Novus Ordo. Not all who prefer the TLM thought ill of the Novus Ordo; still, in preferring the TLM one could argue they thought less of the Novus Ordo. Not much of a difference. I said they were enduring the hostility of Francis; you said they were harboring anti-Francis sentiments. Understandable. Francis’ hatred of tradition, as far as it goes, has needlessly ostracized those who love tradition and one could argue created the ill-will. He should have left matters as Benedict wisely left them. Many TLMers are not hostile to Vatican II. The majority of the unintended consequences you name I suspect should be laid at the feet of Francis. There are plenty of TLMers who are not hostile to Vatican II. Regarding the survey Pope Francis made of the bishops before issuing Traditionis custodes, many bishops responded favorably of Summorum Pontificum and the TLM in their dioceses (some even requested help with establishing the Mass). There is evidence of a crooked path by which Traditionis Custodes was pre-designed, with the survey used as a convenient screen for a foreordained decision. I can no longer believe Pope Francis issued Traditionis custodes for the sake of Church unity, but because traditionalists form an obstacle to his conception of a synodal church.
“Dan’s” comment needs refutation, because it’s so wrong.
No, Pope Francis does not harbor “hatred for tradition.” This is a blatant falsehood.
Yes, though many who exclusively go to the Extraordinary Form (EF) do not harbor hostility towards Vatican II and the Ordinary Form, many sadly do. And their “passions” are being fanned by irresponsible blogs, vlogs, and media personalities who are exploiting them. I wouldn’t doubt the participation of the beloved SSPX in this fanning of people’s irrational “passions” about this.
Therefore, the Pope through “Traditions custodes” (TC) has issued a necessary corrective to the “weaponization” of the Missal of Pope John XXIII.
There is no “crooked path” to the writing of “Traditionis custodes.” That’s a lie. How do we know it’s a lie? Recall the abominable negative reaction to TC, and the unjust visceral attack on the Pope, and the threats of schism.
Folks, be under no illusion, the “passion” for dissent, schism, and disobedience were the reasons for the writing of TC.
No blame should be laid on the Pope’s feet. He is doing God’s work by giving back to the bishops the authority to regulate the celebration of the Extraordinary Form in their dioceses under the guidance of the Holy See.
By the way, the term “TLM” as a reference only to the Extraordinary Form is a misnomer; please don’t continue to fall for that term because the Ordinary Form is also steeped in the Church’s tradition.
TLM is a nickname. It has many.
Well, it’s a mistaken “nickname” because the Missal of Pope Pau VI is also steeped in the Church’s tradition and it may be celebrated in Latin.
You are making an idol of people’s feelings.
The soul’s desire should be for Christ who is in every Mass.
“You are making an idol of people’s feelings.” The fault is mine for mentioning feelings so often. People’s convictions are at stake, not feelings. My bad.
We are supposed to coddle people’s convictions?
Are you sure you want that?
I am not a huge Candace Owens fan but consider her advice on how to break people out of a victim mentality: The first step is to stop coddling people and teach them that not every feeling they have is valid.
I say: I give highest praises to the comments from “Church unity” and “Candace Owens.” That’s my 1st and highest degree of praise to comments I find here. This is the first time I am awarding the highest praise in this here blog. This is therefore a historic moment.
I seldom find praiseworthy comments, but when I do, I am elated.
Why am I doing this? Because I’ve been told I only criticize and find fault. So in response I devised a four-tiered praise scale with the 1st degree being the highest.
So there you are folks, two comments that are worthy of your reading and emulation. Something to strive for. Congratulations!
You get my highest rating for being full of yourself.
Sorry “highest” but you’re wrong. What I am actually full of is elation (and relief) that the cause of the unity of the Church is not lost on some in the commentariat here. “Ut unum sint,” people.
This is in reply to jon, October 29, 2023 at 3:29 pm. 1. “No, Pope Francis does not harbor “hatred for tradition.” This is a blatant falsehood.” jon, please notice I said Francis hatred of tradition, “as far as it goes.” I didn’t say how far it went but that the pope despises tradition to some extent is obvious–Traditionis Custodes being a prime example; his disparaging those who attend the TLM is anohter. 2. “There is no “crooked path” to the writing of “Traditionis custodes.” That’s a lie.” I invite jon to read https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/the-hidden-story-behind-traditionis-custodes/. Diane Montagna is a reputable journalist who asks some probing questions.
“Dan” again is wrong. Sorry. “Traditions custodes” does not prove Pope Francis’ “hatred for tradition” at all. That is preposterous.
If anything, the motu propio manifested the Pope’s vigilance in preserving unity in the Church as well as in deterring the ideologization and weaponization of the Missal of Pope John XXIII, which in itself is evil.
Moreover, the Pope’s paternal care is manifested by the motu propio, by essentially cautioning those who frequent the Extraordinary Form not to use this beautiful Mass to dissent from the Church and to separate themselves.
That’s what a shepherd does. That’s what a spiritual father does.
As for Diana Montagna’s talk/article. Please. I’ve seen this already and have already critiqued it. It is gossipy, littered with insinuations, and suggestions based on flimsy intrigue.
Montagna is basing her allegations on the veracity of a supposed second “report” submitted to the CDF which she herself has not read. Not read, people. How’s that for today’s journalism.
Dan, did it occur to you that the Pope has information that you do not have?
You do not go to a Latin Mass so how do you know what is going on?
For Pete’s sake, even the FBI got concerned about it.
No one is entitled to have Mass their own way.
I noticed a lot of heresy, error and schism coming from TLM-ers. Having dealt with some sedevacantists, I recognized where the errors were coming from.
I did not know it got as bad as it did until after TC.
I am sure there are good people who care about Christ no matter what form of the Mass He chooses to come to us in.
TC is for the good of souls. Medicinal.
This is in reply to jon October 31, 2023 at 12:46 pm:
I am sorry jon for your ignorance of the pope’s hostility towards tradition. I present Archbishop Héctor Aguer on what is going on in Argentina. Please read this and weep. From https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/10/approaches-to-ecclesial-radiography.html.
“1. Priests cancelled. I am not dealing now with what is happening at the international level, but with a phenomenon that is becoming more and more frequent in Argentina, in various dioceses. “Cancelled” is equivalent to a displacement to non-existence when counting the official number of priests who serve as clergy in a particular (diocesan) church. They are deprived of the means to exercise the ministry and are disavowed before the faithful.
They are accused of being “traditionalists,” even though they do not move according to an ideology. Ideological, rather, is the principle of cancellation, which arises from an elementary and shameless progressivism. Unfortunately, the authors of this injustice are bishops. I have to think that they do not know what they are doing, the unjust harm they are causing — which does not justify them as innocent. The cancellers, they who fill their mouths talking about love, are dramatically responsible for such an attack against charity. The number of cancelled priests has grown lately, and this reality exhibits a mysterious side, because it is the mystery of the Church that is affected, the substance of charity that suffers an impairment.”
jon, you can thank Francis for this melancholy state of affairs. Please don’t try to sugarcoat this.
No sugarcoating here, but there is absolutely nothing in what Aguer has written that supports the assertion that Pope Francis harbors hatred for tradition. Nothing.
Do not open. Addressee refused delivery. Return to sender.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2023-10/the-synod-report-a-church-that-involves-everyone.html
Nothing to freak out about.
“Nothing to freak out about.” True. But is it something to be impressed with as meeting the challenges the Church faces? This I am not so sure.
That was not the agenda.
“That was not the agenda.” It should have been.
In a way-the agenda was how to get all to particpate in communion in the Mission of the Church.
Jimmy Martin has to be depressed that the term LGBT+ didn’t get included in the final report. That’s what he went there to accomplish. Fail. Thank God he failed.
I forget if this is the right article that had the comments about the Jerome Biblical Commentary for the 20th Century with all the liberal interpretations of the passages against homosexuality. I went to the library and found the book in the reference section. I read the commentary on all the passages that prohibit or condemn homosexual sex. In every case, the commenters in the JBC20C downplay the passages and say they have nothing to do with “same-sex love” or “homosexual orientation.” They completely miss the point that the Bible is teaching that homosexual intercourse is immoral and against God’s will. One even said the passage should not be used as a “clobber passage.”
I guess you can’t trust modern liberal biblical scholars. If they get something as easy as that wrong, they shouldn’t be listened to. I also found the older Jerome commentaries and read them. They told the truth: that the passages condemn gay sex as sinful.
What’s wrong with modern theologians and biblical scholars?
Thank you for the info.
There is a newer Catholic Bible published that has the traditional interpretation of Sodom and the traditional explanation of Christ’s teaching on marriage in its notes. It is the “St. Joseph New Catholic Bible, Giant Edition” by the Catholic Book Publishing Corp. It has the approval of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines for study. not liturgy. There are pages of notes after each Biblical book that takes into consideration the older and newer Archeological findings. You might look it up on the Catholic Book Publishing Company website. It is very reasonably priced for a study Bible.