Thoughts on Amazon Synod

  • Thread starter Thread starter zgraf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does that include the Great St. John Paul? That is his quote up there on evangelization in America, the one point that applies to this topic.
 
gracepoole said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought the goal of evangelization was to get souls into Heaven, not elitism. As to the faith being watered-down, there has not been one word from the Church, one suggest, that doctrine will be changed.
 
I disagree. The aims from the outside, to me, seem to be to integrate the Amazon rituals and customs into Catholicism to evangelize
 
I do not know what the Pope said. I only know what we have been posting. I seriously doubt he was under the impression a gun was involved though. That seems a pretty big jump.
 
RABAT (Reuters) - Pope Francis told the tiny Catholic community in predominantly Muslim Morocco on Sunday that their mission was not to covert their neighbours but to live in brotherhood with other faiths.

And this from the pope in Africa:
“She said to me in perfect Spanish: ‘Your Holiness, I am from South Africa. This boy was a Hindu and converted to Catholicism. This girl was Anglican and converted to Catholicism.’ But she told me in a triumphant way, as though she was showing off a hunting trophy. I felt uncomfortable and said to her, ‘Madam, evangelization yes, proselytism no.’”
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
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.
Click to expand...
The statistics would disagree with you. Here are statistics from the US.

Number of Priests:
In 1965, there were 58,000 priests. Currently, there are only 45,000 with only 31,000 projected for 2020 with over half being over 70 years old.

New ordinations:
In 1965, there were 1575. Recently, there were only 450.

Parishes without priests:
In 1965, only 1% of parishes did not have a priest, recent stats show the number at 15%.

Seminarians:
1965: 49,000. Recent: 4,700.

Sisters:
1965: 180,000. Recent: 75,000 (average age is 68)

Teaching Sisters:
1965: 104,000. Recent: 8,200

Annulments:
1965: 338. Recent: 50,000. This is despite the fact that the number of Catholic marriages has fallen by nearly a third since 1965.
 
I “liked” your post, but the content would make one cry. Until we stop pretending everything is going so much better than before, we’ll never fix the problems we have. We have to stop rigidly treating Vatican II’s reforms like they are some irreformable force we can never turn back from. That kind of fundamentalism impedes the will of the Spirit and prevents us from seeing reality.

We should not be like those who God reproved for saying “‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14).
Jer.6:16 Thus says the Lord:
“Stand by the roads, and look,
and ask for the ancient paths,
where the good way is; and walk in it,
and find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
Click to expand...
If you make a wrong turn, there’s nothing wrong with admitting it and going back.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
40.png
gracepoole:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought the goal of evangelization was to get souls into Heaven, not elitism. As to the faith being watered-down, there has not been one word from the Church, one suggest, that doctrine will be changed.
Click to expand...
Was St. Paul being elitist when he spoke of a remnant in Romans?
 
otjm said:
almost with an hysterical bent.
Click to expand...
I’ve come across this word applied to those of us who resist this synod, for all the reasons we have explained, elsewhere on the forum. I also came across someone who rightly said being told to ‘don’t worry, just trust them’ is like being sedated.
I’ve read enough CS Lewis to know when to run for the hills
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute

Our Lady of Fatima?..

The 3rd secret?..
 
Last edited:
And not to be rude about it, but it would seem many pick others to follow who seem to align with their own “world views”, and never slow down to put the views of those others into the context of Church teaching.

An example has been the comments about the liturgy “bringing in animistic elements” without any context of what actual is being proposed, and which may well fit within SC and other related documents (e.g. Paul VI’s document on evangelization). Couple that with a thoroughly Eurocentric view of liturgy, and the alarm bells start clanging.

Might someone propose something improper? Of course - but there is a filter - the Holy Spirit - who seems to be presumed absent according to the conversations.
 
Perhaps you have seen what has been suggested to be integrated; I certainly have not. It would be a benefit to the conversation if those specific suggestions were included in this conversation. Your source, if they are too much to quote would be appreciated.

I have heard a hew and cry that such is being proposed without a word as to exactly what they are talking about; and I would again refer to paragraphs 37 through 40 of Sacrosanctum Concilium as to how the Church might approach the matters.
 
I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say bythese statistics - all of which are essentially correct. If you mean or are implying that correlation is causation, your implication is incorrect.

To wit: Mass attendance reached a peak around 1956 - 1957. It started the downhill numbers before Pope John even became Pope, as that occured in October of 1958. No fault divorce started well after Vatican 2.

I could go on, but secularism and other related “isms” had been in play for decades before Vatican 2 and all had a hand in shaping attitudes in culture at large (as there are sub cultures within any main culture). People are impacted by a multitude of attitudes and ideas; presuming to ascribe the changes within Catholic society to one event is at a minimum a precarious adventure. The majority of Catholics within 10 years after Vatican 2 had never even read part, let alone all of the documents, and that statistic hasn’t improved over time.

In short, your implication is a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” argument. An investigation into the mainline Protestant churches would show similar if not worse statistics; so pray tell, how did Vatican 2 cause them to follow the same paths you lay out? And if you doubt me, find an older Presbyterian, or Methodist or Lutheran pastor and ask them, without leading questions, what they have seen over the last 50 years in terms of their overall church statistics. I have had very open and honest answers from some who will tell the same sort of declines.
 
otjm said:
And not to be rude about it, but it would seem many pick others to follow who seem to align with their own “world views”, and never slow down to put the views of those others into the context of Church teaching.

An example has been the comments about the liturgy “bringing in animistic elements” without any context of what actual is being proposed, and which may well fit within SC and other related documents (e.g. Paul VI’s document on evangelization). Couple that with a thoroughly Eurocentric view of liturgy, and the alarm bells start clanging.

Might someone propose something improper? Of course - but there is a filter - the Holy Spirit - who seems to be presumed absent according to the conversations.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, the Holy Spirit has to be listened to. He’s not a magic ghost who uses a wand to ensure God’s will is being done.
 
I’m not doubting you being correct on the protestant churches. My question is the, why did we change our process to be more similar to them then? If they’re worse off than we are when it comes to those kinds of statistics, why would we want to change the substance of our faith to be more similar to the ones that are failing?
 
Have you read the working documents for the synod? It reads like these Amazonians have their own religion that is beautiful and modern man has screwed it up and that we need to evangalize these people by incorporating their rituals into Catholicism and vice versa.

And the talk about married priests, women deacons/priests, the odd pictures and pagan symbols on the vatican…it is just very very troubling to me
 
Frankie65 said:
40.png
otjm:
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.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute

Our Lady of Fatima?..

The 3rd secret?..
Click to expand...
The 3rd secret was not prophesying the end of the Church. Lucia reported about a priest in white who she assumed was the Pope, being led up and killed by evil people.
 
Last edited:
Eh, I guess that all depends on how one views the infamous 3rd secret…
 
otjm said:
And not to be rude about it, but it would seem many pick others to follow who seem to align with their own “world views”, and never slow down to put the views of those others into the context of Church teaching.
Click to expand...
This aspect is more than significant to Catholic faith. Being a living ‘witness’ to Christ depends so much on ‘osmosis’ if you like. For communion to be rich between the faithful, they have to communicate or connect, not just by words but by spirit. My two sisters in law and my brother in law were all non Catholics and not interested in converting when they married into our family. Now 25 to 30 years on, all have converted at one time or another and become not just Catholic in name but in the way of living each day.

I have spent my time warning my kids about the faction in the Church that are morbidly negative and rigid in their faith especially this new trend of outright rejecting the Popes authority to teach us. I don’t understand them and the spirit they are sharing around through ‘osmosis’ is foreign and dark to me. Almost the antithesis of joyful, hopeful steadfast Christian faith. We are meant to be witness to the hope of glory to others rather than coaching them to be critical, judgmental rejecting the authority of a Pope.

Col 1 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Rom 15 13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

1 Pet 3 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; do not be shaken.” 15 But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope you possess. But respond with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who slander you may be put to shame by your good behavior in Christ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top