Thoughts on Amazon Synod

  • Thread starter Thread starter zgraf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Adamek said:
Where does Francis and his attitudes toward conversion fit in?
Click to expand...
I do not know his attitudes. I know he has spoken against forced and coerced conversions, something I thought I would never see defended again. Even during the era of conquest in the new world, there were progressive Catholic clergy that saw the need to evangelize more in the model of St. Paul, and less in the model of Mohammed. The Amazon is the largest remaining population on Earth where this may still be an issue. I would think a little caution from history would be advisable.
 
Last edited:
What forced conversion? He slammed some woman for converting two people in Africa. Did he think she did it at gun point?
 
Remember though this is the media reporting. For all we know, Pope Francis’ words could be translated in a far more fatherly manner, and he might even have talked to the woman, and she might have even said, “You know, Holy Father, perhaps I was too concerned over myself, I’m sorry”, and knew and encouraged him to use her story to help make a point.

Like I said, I remember far too well how Pope Benedict’s words and actions were misreported and slanted. I’m sure Pope Francis’ words and actions are being distorted as well.
 
Frankie65 said:
Emerald lady, he would not have been talking about Catholicism.
If he was , I might as well give up now
Click to expand...
He was talking about proselytism in general. One of the key commitments of Vatican II was change the way we spread the Gospel. A new evangelisation to be fruitful in a world that was rapidly changing. Instead of using coercion or force of any sort, to use dialogue and to walk with people. Meet them where they are at. In Ecclesia in America Pope St JPII wrote…

The Catholic Church in America is critical of proselytism by the sects and, for this reason, rejects methods of this kind in her own evangelizing work. Presenting the Gospel of Christ in its entirety, the work of evangelization must respect the inner sanctuary of every individual’s conscience, where the decisive and absolutely personal dialogue between grace and human freedom unfolds.

Pope St Paul VI in his 1964 encyclical on dialogue in the new evangelisation explains this…

The dialogue of salvation did not physically force anyone to accept it; it was a tremendous appeal of love which, although placing a vast responsibility on those toward whom it was directed, nevertheless left them free to respond to it or to reject it.

But it seems to us that the relationship of the Church to the world, without precluding other legitimate forms of expression, can be represented better in a dialogue,

79. This type of relationship indicates a proposal of courteous esteem, of understanding and of goodness on the part of the one who inaugurates the dialogue; it excludes the a priori condemnation, the offensive and time-worn polemic and emptiness of useless conversation. If this approach does not aim at effecting the immediate conversion of the interlocutor, inasmuch as it respects both his dignity and his freedom, nevertheless it does aim at helping him, and tries to dispose him for a fuller sharing of sentiments and convictions.

85. And before speaking, it is necessary to listen, not only to a man’s voice, but to his heart. A man must first be understood; and, where he merits it, agreed with. In the very act of trying to make ourselves pastors, fathers and teachers of men, we must make ourselves their brothers. The spirit of dialogue is friendship and, even more, is service. All this we must remember and strive to put into practice according to the example and commandment that Christ left to Us.

In light of these explanations of approaching evangelisation today, isn’t it really quite fitting that we first listen to people of the Amazon through their cultural expressions so we can ‘dialogue’ with understanding?
 
And such a great job it did 😂
[/quote]

There is this continued underlying falsehood that all was well in the Church before the Council. It was not. Post WWII, the failure of the Church to reach and keep peoples faith was already frighteningly apparent. There is the false belief that if the Church had just let well enough alone that everything would be fine. I challenge you to take the time to read the 16 documents that came from Vatican II and just realise how urgent the need for reform had become. Without reform, the Church would be a niche clique with little standing in the modern world in which it is so desperately needed. Start with Ecclesiam Suam 1964.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html
 
I and the Post VII Popes disagree with you. As with all reform, it isn’t a perfect road and there needs to be continued work on renewal. But today, the Church is a vibrant voice getting her message to a global audience through the opportunities of advanced communication. She also has a significant voice in global society and politics. Many more people are capable of knowing and understanding Catholic teaching than ever before. There are still sections of remote and isolated communities that deserve special attention though perhaps not having the benefit of communication.

I believe sincerely that without reform, the Church would have become a small niche community obstinately refusing to go out into the world.
 
And, back to the Amazon!

There have been comments made in a negative fashion concerning adaptions to the Liturgy. Looking to Sacrosanctum Concilium, paragraphs 37 to 40 we find:
"37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.
  1. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.
  2. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.
  3. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:
  1. The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should then be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.
  2. To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.
  3. Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them."
(continued)
 
(continued):

It would appear that some of those voicing concern either are not familiar with this part of the document, and/or have little contact with other cultures and societies, or disagree with the document. However, considering any adaptions to the Litury and the sacraments, it has been implemented since Vatican 2.

As to the dither concerning possible further relaxation of the rule of celibacy for priests, it is absolutely astounding to hear people say or imply that doing such would be the end of celibacy, Such comments to me betray something deeper, causing such comments to appear to be tinged almost with an hysterical bent.

It may be very possible that the Synod will recommend a relaxing of the rule; it would still be up to the Pope (and his advisers and fellow bishops) as to whether or not the rule is relaxed, and if so, to what extent. Meanwhile, the dithering is… strange. We already have married priests in the Roman Rite, so it is not exactly plowing new ground (or returning to the traditions of about 1,000 years).

And to those who push the buttons of “impending heresy”, I don’t think the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church, nor will we lose that protection, never mind the almost fevered pitch of those who express such fears.

And the bottom line is that the likely impact to those of us in North America and Europe (not to mention other parts of the world far from the Amazon) is likely to be nothing more than further chi fodder after the Synod has finished its work and produced its document.

So it is fine and worthy to pray that the Holy Spirit will use this synod to do the work God wants done; it is praiseworthy to ask God’s guidance. Then it would be good if a bit less ink is spilled and electrons confounded, and that we all spend more time taking care of that which is within our own sphere of influence and worrying less about that which is not.

And that is not directed to anyone on this thread; just my thoughts.
 
Emeraldlady said:
And such a great job it did 😂
Click to expand...
There is this continued underlying falsehood that all was well in the Church before the Council. It was not. Post WWII, the failure of the Church to reach and keep peoples faith was already frighteningly apparent. There is the false belief that if the Church had just let well enough alone that everything would be fine. I challenge you to take the time to read the 16 documents that came from Vatican II and just realise how urgent the need for reform had become. Without reform, the Church would be a niche clique with little standing in the modern world in which it is so desperately needed. Start with Ecclesiam Suam 1964.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html
[/quote]

The Church’s standing in the modern world should be one of Her last concerns. Better a small faithful remnant than a watered down faith.
 
Hmm. I’ve been proselytized by protestants on occasion, but no one ever tried to force me against my will. Now there are a lot of evangelicals in South America, doing their own proselytizing, and it works pretty well. The preach the gospel and ask people to accept Jesus. Admittedly, that’s a lot simpler than getting people to attend RCIA, but they are having some success, without worrying about inculturation or trying to help converts keep their pagan customs.
 
otjm said:
It would appear that some of those voicing concern either are not familiar with this part of the document, and/or have little contact with other cultures and societies, or disagree with the document.
Click to expand...
I think everyone should be forced to read all 16 documents of Vatican II before ever being allowed to discuss it. Too many come to the discussion with a priori condemnation of the new evangelisation.
 
gracepoole said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
And such a great job it did 😂
Click to expand...
There is this continued underlying falsehood that all was well in the Church before the Council. It was not. Post WWII, the failure of the Church to reach and keep peoples faith was already frighteningly apparent. There is the false belief that if the Church had just let well enough alone that everything would be fine. I challenge you to take the time to read the 16 documents that came from Vatican II and just realise how urgent the need for reform had become. Without reform, the Church would be a niche clique with little standing in the modern world in which it is so desperately needed. Start with Ecclesiam Suam 1964.

Ecclesiam Suam (August 6, 1964) | Paul VI
Click to expand...
The Church’s standing in the modern world should be one of Her last concerns. Better a small faithful remnant than a watered down faith.
[/quote]

I simply could never imagine Jesus advising that. He reached out far and wide and while the Pharisees were chastising Him for ‘watering down the faith’, he was planting, planting, planting, seeds that in due time ushered in a glorious spring time harvest.
 
Last edited:
The Pharisees chastized Jesus for ‘watering down the faith’? While there is certainly a case for Christianity being Judaism fulfilled, it is NOT Judaism. So while a person might think that Jesus’ saying, "the Sabbath is meant for man, not man for the Sabbath’ ‘watered down’ Jewish teachings, what does that person think then about Jesus’ teaching about divorce (Jews allowed it from Moses; Jesus did not), about adultery (Jesus said that simply ‘looking with lust’ was adultery, Jews only considered the physical act as such), etc?

Watering down? Not hardly.
And while Jesus told us to go out and preach the Word, to all, He said nothing about, “And then it will be universally accepted!”
 
Adamek said:
What forced conversion? He slammed some woman for converting two people in Africa. Did he think she did it at gun point?
Click to expand...
That is not even close to what I said. I give up. I cannot follow discussion that I do not believe is in good faith. My post is still up and I believe the differences are quite obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top