Thoughts on Amazon Synod

  • Thread starter Thread starter zgraf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am old enough to remember what Protestant worship looked like before Vatican 2, and whomever gave you information that we “changed our liturgy to look like the Protestants” lied to you. Note I use the word “lied”, as in prevaricated.

If you want to know why the Mass and the sacraments were modified in form, I would suggest you read the actual document that started that moving toward change, which is Sacrosanctum Concilium, the document of Vatican 2 concerning these matters. The Mass was revised to be closer to its roots in the early Church - as the document notes, some things had been added which needed to be removed, and some thing had been lost which needed to be brought back (e.g. the Old Testament reading).

We did not change any substance of the faith. We changed some of the liturgical parts, eliminating, for example, the Lat Gospel, which long ago had been added to the Mass and previous to that may have been said privately by the priest - likewise prayers at the foot of the altar.

None of that changed the substance of our faith. The substance of our faith are the doctrines; none were changed.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
I am old enough to remember what Protestant worship looked like before Vatican 2, and whomever gave you information that we “changed our liturgy to look like the Protestants” lied to you.
Click to expand...
I think that depends on what version of Protestantism you’re speaking of.
 
And you obtained this from what source? You have access to the synod documents?

No, I didn’t think so.

It would be nice if we all could chill out a bit, let the synod do its work, and then respond to what the synod says, not what one individual or another not a part of the synod has proposed, suggested, presumed or thought of during a delirium.

We now seem to have two new sources of the Magisterium: Dr. Taylor Marshall and Michael Voris. How about we let the bishops, who, last time I checked, are farther up the pay grade than either of these two, do their work and sort out what they need to sort out, then let them approach the Vatican with whatever their requests/decisions/suggestions are and let the Vatican sort through it and make its decision?

And if some readers of this thread are upset, then pray to the Holy Spirit. And while you are at it, read Mathew 16:18 and John 14:26. Last time I checked (and no, I am not part of the Magisterium), the Holy Spirit still protects the Church. We all might have a bit more inner peace if we were to actually believe that, instead of the most recent breathless panic attacks which seem to be going on in the internet.
 
pnewton said:
secularism
Click to expand...
I’ve been having pretty good results as of late giving testimony to secularized Catholics that had never heard/studied the faith. Some of them really like the idea and are willing to read catholic authors on the subjects they are interested in.
pnewton said:
modernism
Click to expand...
I don’t know about these. I get a feeling the countries that are smaller have a moderate priesthood/episcopal community leaning conservative/humanist without going traditionalist. I’ve only read 1 priest/monk who’s “modernist” in my country and he’s a 90yo Dominican monk…My guess is there aren’t “modernists” in the vast majority of the Catholic universe, because if they were deviant they would probably have been filtered at the seminary.

I get a feeling the “modernists” are over represented and hyped by the media. (You need some of them in the “academic/intellectual” sector of the church to push boundaries and experiment.)
 
Last edited:
gracepoole said:
Eh, I guess that all depends on how one views the infamous 3rd secret…
Click to expand...
I suppose the Portuguese bishops and the popes have enough insight on the matter.
Emeraldlady said:
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.
Click to expand...
I read the original manuscript when it was exhibited at Fátima short before the centenary.
 
Last edited:
Other than the “high” Anglicans, Episcopalians and Lutherans, any concept of liturgy quickly erodes. And they the “high” churches)have appeared to follow Rome in spite of their occasional distaste for that Seat. they did not lead and the Church follow.

I had a secretary who was high Lutheran and was getting married; I went to the service which looked remarkably like the Mass, ad orientem. That was in the late 1970’s.
 
I don’t need a source to tell me that what happened at least looks a lot like a pagan worship ceremony. Though the fact that the Vatican won’t comment on the ceremony to clarify is interesting.

As for your “Just listen to the bishops” comment: Just because someone is a cleric doesn’t mean he is perfect. He can err, quite horribly may I add. Even a group of them together may err. Also, isn’t clericalism bad? So why is it that anytime someone offers criticism over the actions or words of some clergy, they are immediately told to stay quiet and listen to the clergy? Didn’t Vatican 2 emphasize the important role that layman have in the Church? So why can’t we listen to concerned layman talk about what they perceive as issues in the Church? Whatever happened to the culture of dialogue that many church leaders, including Pope Francis, have been promoting? I don’t like this “more Catholic than the pope/bishops/priest” accusations that are thrown into concerned Catholics’ faces. And yes the Holy Spirit does protect the Church. But the Bible clearly tells us that in the last days, faithlessness will reign. The Church may suffer VERY much, yet the gates of hell will not prevail. This phrase only promises that the ultimate victory will belong to the Church. It does not promise we won’t suffer.
 
Last edited:
rfournier103 said:
I cringe every time something like this synod takes place.

Can you imagine St. John Paul II doing something like this?

Neither can I.
Click to expand...
Pope St JPII was regularly criticised for his tolerance of other cultures rituals and he even participated in cultural ceremonies to the great chagrin of fundamentalist types.
 
Modernism was a poorly crafted term used to describe the drift in Biblical scholarship, starting primarily in Protestant theological circles in Germany which took scholarship to a purely analytical approach, removing any question or concept in interpreting Scripture that Scripture was divine revelation. Father Alfred Loisy a French priest was excommunicated for his work in scriptural Theology (and another priest, whose name escapes me, likewise over Scriptural work).

It is an extreme stretch to the point of breaking any meaning of the term to apply it as it gets bandied about in matters other than Scriptural research; it becomes the boogeyman under the bed, or in the closet. And as a point, the Vatican does not refer to various matters as sounding in “modernism”; they reer to the various s=movements and schools of thought by more articulate names (e.g “secularism”, Marxism, hedonism, relativism, etc.).
 
Some, if not many of those same critics would at best give faint praise to SC, all the way to condemning it.
 
otjm said:
Modernism was a poorly crafted term used to describe the drift in Biblical scholarship, starting primarily in Protestant theological circles in Germany which took scholarship to a purely analytical approach, removing any question or concept in interpreting Scripture that Scripture was divine revelation. Father Alfred Loisy a French priest was excommunicated for his work in scriptural Theology (and another priest, whose name escapes me, likewise over Scriptural work).

It is an extreme stretch to the point of breaking any meaning of the term to apply it as it gets bandied about in matters other than Scriptural research; it becomes the boogeyman under the bed, or in the closet. And as a point, the Vatican does not refer to various matters as sounding in “modernism”; they reer to the various s=movements and schools of thought by more articulate names (e.g “secularism”, Marxism, hedonism, relativism, etc.).
Click to expand...
But not really.

Oath Against Modernism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
 
I used the term “bishops” in the plural for a reason. I am not exactly naive.
and yes, the Church urged that laity have a bigger place in the Church; beyond “pay, pray and obey”.

What I observe is that those laity who are of a liberal mindset tend toward theologians and clergy who are of a like mind, and those who are of conservative mindset tend towards those who take a stance somewhere between conservative and ultra conservative (thus the continued influence among a small minority, of the SSPX, for example).

I hve better things to do that to try to follow what is or is not going on in the synod (although I noted recently, on the issue of ordaining married men, there are those in favor and those opposed - which does not surprise me in the least, nor cause any discomfort).

I have far, far better ways to use my time than to follow with bated breath the comments of certain conservative pundits concerning the synod. It is so far above my pay grade, and so small the infinitesimal possibility that anyone would seek my comment or aid in the matter, that I largely ignore the matter unless I almost literally stumble on something concerning it.

And it is not going to impact me in the least, in any way shape or form. Nor will it impact anyone else in this thread, or within the Catholic Church in America. In short, it has been a point of rabble rousing from my perspective; a tremendous amount of chatter is going on over which we have neither any real, verifiable facts in context (there is a lot of innuendo along with partial facts and/or fictions) nor any clear idea what is and what is not being proposed in seriousness.

in the last 2,000 years there have been all sorts of issues within the Church. Gnosticism still lingers within society at large, and undoubtedly touches some Catholics, and how many centuries has that been?

I have work to do; I work with RCIA, with Catholics Returning Home; and with charitible works where I can. And I pray; and if I remember, I pray for the synod; but I have fiorends dying of cancer and doggone it, that takes a priority of my attention.

I would suggest those who have their knickers in a twist over the synod start focusing a little close to hoeml to where you and I can actually have some (name removed by moderator)ut.

Instead of worrying about the Amazon (which needs worrying about) I would suggest we all turn off the news channels related to that and focus, for example, on the what - 50 to 60 million children who have been aborted in the US, and do something to support your local Right To Life Group. That is something you can actually have (name removed by moderator)ut on. Or work in a soup kitchen. Or do something once a week for an elderly neighbor. I suggest that would be far more effective use of your time than sharing with others “Did you hear what So and So said about the Amazon?”
 
Oh, yes, but really. I am not only aware of the oath, but also aware that the Church no longer uses it. Reason? Scripture scholarship has moved on in the last 100 years. It (the term) was specifically focused on a specific problem, and new problems are not related.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think we can focus on stuff going on in the Church and on things “close to home” at the same time. Though obviously the latter should take precedence. The fact is we belong to a Church, and when things seem to be going awry, no matter how far away it is, its not wrong to be concerned. Though I do agree that we shouldn’t let worries become our sole focus or let ourselves become too disturbed.
 
Emeraldlady said:
Whatever she represents, I think it’s amazing and heartening that they already have a sense of a supernatural maternal force of love to reference Our Lady with. So many Protestants baulk at coming into the Church because of our love of the Holy Mother. They have been so poisoned by the idea that it is exclusively a pagan concept.
Click to expand...
Please everyone. I beg you to read the Lord of the World, Mgr Robert Hugh Benson. He exactly recounts this. Many Catholics are deceived into worshipping an enormous figure of Maternity which has been erected in St Paul’s Cathedral London. Those who refuse are punished by increments. Eventually death is ordained for those who refuse to worship.

The worship of maternity is the conclusion of years of pantheistic religion slowly sinking many of the faithful into a slow seductive apostasy
 
otjm said:
Oh, yes, but really. I am not only aware of the oath, but also aware that the Church no longer uses it. Reason? Scripture scholarship has moved on in the last 100 years. It (the term) was specifically focused on a specific problem, and new problems are not related.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you wouldn’t mind providing a source, then.
 
Frankie65 said:
Please everyone. I beg you to read the Lord of the World, Mgr Robert Hugh Benson. He exactly recounts this. Many Catholics are deceived into worshipping an enormous figure of Maternity which has been erected in St Paul’s Cathedral London. Those who refuse are punished by increments. Eventually death is ordained for those who refuse to worship.

The worship of maternity is the conclusion of years of pantheistic religion slowly sinking many of the faithful into a slow seductive apostasy
Click to expand...
Just started reading it now. It is available here. https://www.somersetacademy.com/ourpages/auto/2015/9/29/56608819/lord of the world.pdf , and probably elsewhere.
 
From Lord of the World:

That is all very well; but, on the other hand, you must remember that Humanitarianism, contrary to all per- sons’ expectations, is becoming an actual religion itself, though anti-supernatural. It is Pantheism; it is developing a ritual under Freemasonry; it has a creed, `God is Man,’ and the rest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top