Tidings of Great Joy re: Synod

[opus101]

The Peace of Jesus Christ be with you all! May His Holy Name be forever blessed.

All of the confusion over the Synod is just the work of the author of confusion.

All is well, the Church will go on until the end of time, truth shall prevail as always.

We will be in better shape after all of this.

The Pope knows what he is doing. His silence seems mysterious to some, but do not fear. There is a reason for it. If he encourages frank dialogue, it clearly shows where some Bishops stand. It also helps clarify what they really mean, in case they have been misjudged or falsely portrayed by others.

Don’t despair or worry. The synod will end up showing falsehood for what it is. If the Pope speaks up too soon, the true extent of the falsehood and its damage cannot be known. This is the only way.

Sweet dreams.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

 

[surritter]

However, it should be stated that those who are worried are NOT worried about the truth not prevailing. Rather, the worry is that people who are not connected to the faith may only hear the confusion part (which you’ve acknowledged is out there, courtesy of the enemy) and that may unwittingly drive them to embrace things that truth tells us are sinful.

So yes, truth will prevail, but in the meantime souls could be lost to sin because of the needless fog surrounding this synod. Could the fog have been avoided?

 

[graciew]

The Holy Spirit is in charge.
Unfailingly present.
God bless you all.

 

[HelenRose]

However, it should be stated that those who are worried are NOT worried about the truth not prevailing. Rather, the worry is that people who are not connected to the faith may only hear the confusion part (which you’ve acknowledged is out there, courtesy of the enemy) and that may unwittingly drive them to embrace things that truth tells us are sinful.

So yes, truth will prevail, but in the meantime souls could be lost to sin because of the needless fog surrounding this synod. Could the fog have been avoided?

I think a lot about what you said. I have come to the conclusion that although many people do get the wrong message, more often than not, it is because they hear what they want to hear. As irritating and frustrating as it is to listen to the main stream media, we must remember that they only exist in this tiny moment in time. Even though the media is in our faces so much of the time, it is truly insignificant in the scheme of things.

It fascinates me how the press and our secular culture tries to downplay the importance of the Church but they still are totally obsessed with the Church.

I also think about how clear and precise Pope Benedict is in his writing and in his sermons. Yet the media and culture turn, twist and confuse everything he has written and said. I think Pope Francis has decided that it is not worth the effort to un-befuddle the befuddled.

As Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” The rest will not understand no matter how clear the message is.

 

[opus101]

I think a lot about what you said. I have come to the conclusion that although many people do get the wrong message, more often than not, it is because they hear what they want to hear. As irritating and frustrating as it is to listen to the main stream media, we must remember that they only exist in this tiny moment in time. Even though the media is in our faces so much of the time, it is truly insignificant in the scheme of things.

It fascinates me how the press and our secular culture tries to downplay the importance of the Church but they still are totally obsessed with the Church.

I also think about how clear and precise Pope Benedict is in his writing and in his sermons. Yet the media and culture turn, twist and confuse everything he has written and said. I think Pope Francis has decided that it is not worth the effort to un-befuddle the befuddled.

As Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” The rest will not understand no matter how clear the message is.

 

[Mark121359]

All of the confusion over the Synod is just the work of the author of confusion.

All is well, the Church will go on until the end of time, truth shall prevail as always.

We will be in better shape after all of this.

While I agree that the Church will go on, I can’t help but be troubled by the fact that the most controversial proposals received support from the majority of bishops gathered for this Synod on the Family. Although, thank God, it failed to receive the required two-thirds majority that would have signaled formal approval. Still, if that doesn’t spell out a Church divided…I don’t know what does! I believe it was at La Salette Our Lady supposedly said; *“Satan will succeed in infiltrating into the highest positions in the Church. A time of very severe trial is also coming for the Church. Cardinals will oppose Cardinals and Bishops will oppose Bishops. Satan will enter into their very midst. In Rome also, there will occur great changes.” * After this synod…I can’t help but wonder.

Peace, Mark

 

[surritter]

I think a lot about what you said. I have come to the conclusion that although many people do get the wrong message, more often than not, it is because they hear what they want to hear. As irritating and frustrating as it is to listen to the main stream media, we must remember that they only exist in this tiny moment in time. Even though the media is in our faces so much of the time, it is truly insignificant in the scheme of things.

It fascinates me how the press and our secular culture tries to downplay the importance of the Church but they still are totally obsessed with the Church.

I also think about how clear and precise Pope Benedict is in his writing and in his sermons. Yet the media and culture turn, twist and confuse everything he has written and said. I think Pope Francis has decided that it is not worth the effort to un-befuddle the befuddled.

As Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” The rest will not understand no matter how clear the message is.

No – I disagree quite strongly. You say that people hear what they want to hear, despite the actual words that might enter their ears. But in this case (last week’s relatio), the actual words broadcast to everyone’s ears is that a homosexual orientation is to be accepted and valued, and that certain fruits of that disorder are to be held up and esteemed.

That doesn’t require anyone’s word-processing part of the brain to come to the conclusion that the document is quite favorable to homosexual tendencies. But of course, that’s contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and constant teaching for twenty centuries. Thus, damage is being done, even though the final statements from the Vatican next year will no doubt be consonant with Church teaching.

 

[Mark121359]

I believe it was at La Salette Our Lady supposedly said; *“Satan will succeed in infiltrating into the highest positions in the Church. A time of very severe trial is also coming for the Church. Cardinals will oppose Cardinals and Bishops will oppose Bishops. Satan will enter into their very midst. In Rome also, there will occur great changes.”
*
Correction. Actually it was Akita…my bad.

Peace, Mark

 

[lvcabbie]

The left is screaming and hollering all over the internet that the Synod retained its homophobia by not accepting “marital equality”.

As usual, they slant everything their way without seeing exactly what conclusions the bishops came to.

 

[otjm]

Still, if that doesn’t spell out a Church divided…I don’t know what does!

Peace, Mark

Considering your concern: can you name a time in the lat 2000 years +/- that the Church has not had divisions?

I can’t, and though I will readily admit I am not an historian, it is my recollection that the divisions go back even before th founding of the Church: see, for example, John 6 where many of the disciples left the Lord, and He turned to the Apostles and asked the equivalent of “You too?”.

We live in a world that is so unprecedented that those caught up in it fail to understand an essential element or two.

The Church is striving to be transparent; the alternative would result in even more bad press.

We live in an age of instant communications, and instant analysis. even 30 years ago, the world was not so “connected”, if you will; it took longer for information to filter out, and there were far fewer “analysts”. The press was much more - what, controlled? Sedate? Circumspect? Not sure exactly what word(s) to put there, but there was no internet, so twisting things took much more time, and since most people’s attention span is short and has been for who knows how long, a lot of the silliness simply did not develop.

Which does not mean there was no division; only that it simply wasn’t front electron news. Or front page, if you wish, since electrons were subject to far less abuse. A well as people…

 

[opus101]

No – But in this case (last week’s relatio), the actual words broadcast to everyone’s ears is that a homosexual orientation is to be accepted and valued, and that certain fruits of that disorder are to be held up and esteemed.

It has been stated over and over again that the word “evaluate” was mistranslated to “value”. Where are you getting your information? Or are you hearing just want you want to hear?

 

[Vocem_Meam]

No – I disagree quite strongly. You say that people hear what they want to hear, despite the actual words that might enter their ears. But in this case (last week’s relatio), the actual words broadcast to everyone’s ears is that a homosexual orientation is to be accepted and valued, and that certain fruits of that disorder are to be held up and esteemed.

That doesn’t require anyone’s word-processing part of the brain to come to the conclusion that the document is quite favorable to homosexual tendencies. But of course, that’s contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and constant teaching for twenty centuries. Thus, damage is being done, even though the final statements from the Vatican next year will no doubt be consonant with Church teaching.

I would tend to agree with HelenRose on this question. Based on the updated mid-term report published by The Catholic Herald, especially paragraph 50, “Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?” This strikes me as leaving ample room for remaining inside orthodoxy. Note, particularly, the use of the term “orientation”. I’m assuming this word was chosen explicitly in exclusion of “actions” or something like that.

Further, “Moreover, the Church affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same level as marriage between man and woman. … Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons.” (Par. 51 & 52)

This sort of language seems perfectly within the bounds of what the Church teaches.

 

[twf]

The Pope knows what he is doing. His silence seems mysterious to some, but do not fear. There is a reason for it.

I think we need to be careful here. The Pope is not God. The above comes close to saying “the Pope moves in mysterious ways…but always for our good” which is something we can only really attribute to God. I’m not commenting on Pope Francis one way or another…but as a general statement, Popes can make mistakes. Popes can say the wrong thing. Popes can support the wrong group. Popes have in the past and can again fail in various ways. I say this not to “warn” people about Pope Francis…not at all…but I think it is very dangerous to attribute an impeccability to the papacy. Our faith only teaches that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Pope from binding the Church to heresy. Our faith does not teach that the Pope will always do the right thing. Our faith should not be shattered if we find a pope’s choices disappointing. All popes are sinners like us. Ultimately the Church is sustained by Christ. The Pope and bishops are simply His servants.

 

[chero23]

However, it should be stated that those who are worried are NOT worried about the truth not prevailing. Rather, the worry is that people who are not connected to the faith may only hear the confusion part (which you’ve acknowledged is out there, courtesy of the enemy) and that may unwittingly drive them to embrace things that truth tells us are sinful.

So yes, truth will prevail, but in the meantime souls could be lost to sin because of the needless fog surrounding this synod. Could the fog have been avoided?

True, but I also believe that those who believe, a lot will come back. Maybe not right away, but they will see a decline in morals and values, and they will see that the Truth is the only way. The Church will always welcome them with an open arm.

 

[chero23]

I think we need to be careful here. The Pope is not God. The above comes close to saying “the Pope moves in mysterious ways…but always for our good” which is something we can only really attribute to God. I’m not commenting on Pope Francis one way or another…but as a general statement, Popes can make mistakes. Popes can say the wrong thing. Popes can support the wrong group. Popes have in the past and can again fail in various ways. I say this not to “warn” people about Pope Francis…not at all…but I think it is very dangerous to attribute an impeccability to the papacy. Our faith only teaches that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Pope from binding the Church to heresy. Our faith does not teach that the Pope will always do the right thing. Our faith should not be shattered if we find a pope’s choices disappointing. All popes are sinners like us. Ultimately the Church is sustained by Christ. The Pope and bishops are simply His servants.

Remember there’s a difference between impeccability and infallibility. In regards to faith and morals the Pope and Magisterium will never guide us in wrong. Be sure that this will be an official decree, which means that the Pope will speak with no error.

 

[Lormar]

The Peace of Jesus Christ be with you all! May His Holy Name be forever blessed.

All of the confusion over the Synod is just the work of the author of confusion.

All is well, the Church will go on until the end of time, truth shall prevail as always.

We will be in better shape after all of this.

The Pope knows what he is doing. His silence seems mysterious to some, but do not fear. There is a reason for it. If he encourages frank dialogue, it clearly shows where some Bishops stand. It also helps clarify what they really mean, in case they have been misjudged or falsely portrayed by others.

Don’t despair or worry. The synod will end up showing falsehood for what it is. If the Pope speaks up too soon, the true extent of the falsehood and its damage cannot be known. This is the only way.

Sweet dreams.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Just saw this thread and wanted to say, Opus, I hope you are right.

 

[Lormar]

Considering your concern: can you name a time in the lat 2000 years +/- that the Church has not had divisions?

I can’t, and though I will readily admit I am not an historian, it is my recollection that the divisions go back even before th founding of the Church: see, for example, John 6 where many of the disciples left the Lord, and He turned to the Apostles and asked the equivalent of “You too?”.

We live in a world that is so unprecedented that those caught up in it fail to understand an essential element or two.

The Church is striving to be transparent; the alternative would result in even more bad press.

We live in an age of instant communications, and instant analysis. even 30 years ago, the world was not so “connected”, if you will; it took longer for information to filter out, and there were far fewer “analysts”. The press was much more - what, controlled? Sedate? Circumspect? Not sure exactly what word(s) to put there, but there was no internet, so twisting things took much more time, and since most people’s attention span is short and has been for who knows how long, a lot of the silliness simply did not develop.

Which does not mean there was no division; only that it simply wasn’t front electron news. Or front page, if you wish, since electrons were subject to far less abuse. A well as people…

It’s true that the Church has been divided and a mess from the beginning. What else can anyone expect with human beings in charge of it?

 

[TMC]

While I agree that the Church will go on, I can’t help but be troubled by the fact that the most controversial proposals received support from the majority of bishops gathered for this Synod on the Family. Although, thank God, it failed to receive the required two-thirds majority that would have signaled formal approval. Still, if that doesn’t spell out a Church divided…I don’t know what does! I believe it was at La Salette Our Lady supposedly said; *“Satan will succeed in infiltrating into the highest positions in the Church. A time of very severe trial is also coming for the Church. Cardinals will oppose Cardinals and Bishops will oppose Bishops. Satan will enter into their very midst. In Rome also, there will occur great changes.” * After this synod…I can’t help but wonder.

Peace, Mark

Have you considered the possibility that a majority of the bishops accepted the proposals you consider “controversial” because those proposals are right and correct, and that the Spirit is at work guiding the Church in that direction?

 

[Origen52]

I don’t know about tidings of joy. I find only sadness emerging from the synod. Hearing rumours of cardinals “vehemently” disagreeing with each other, publishing and then retracting a summary, reigniting the tensions of the sixties and seventies between conservatives and progressives, none of this does anything to promote the image of the church as a beacon of peace unto the nations.

Then there’s the whole matter of Cardinal Burke’s public demotion. I don’t want to say anymore about that other than it sadness me. Was there no better way to deal with these differences?

I can’t help but think about the good the money spent on this synod might have done had it been used to make life better for those marginalized from society. Why did the homosexual question take presidence over the question of divorce? Why was homosexuality even discussed in a synod on the family, since the church firmly affirms that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

I just find the whole debacle sorrowful.

 

[surritter]

It has been stated over and over again that the word “evaluate” was mistranslated to “value”. Where are you getting your information? Or are you hearing just want you want to hear?

Opus, did you read my post? Or just pick out the ONE word that you wished to correct me on?

Yes, I have heard about that faulty translation. So let’s look at the OTHER word in their sentence:

The relatio wrote of “accepting … their sexual orientation.” (Notice that I deleted the word that caused you to reply.)

So now that your point has been made, my point still stands: I’ve never stated that Church teaching has never been in peril, but the relatio created confusion, even with an accurate translation.