With a subtitle of: 'Let's hope that Pope Francis will destroy the final document,' Dutch bishop Robert Mutsaerts declared, 'but hopes are truly slim. Lord, have mercy.'
Among the strong words used by Bishop Mutsaerts are “deception” and “mockery”: he sees the Amazon Synod as marking a clear “break” with tradition.
A different view
Posted by Faz on January 19, 2020, 6:56 pm, in reply to "An impassioned plea"
Posted by Faz on January 19, 2020, 7:50 pm, in reply to "A different view"
1. The synod was prophetic in placing Amazonian and indigenous communities at the center of the synod process and for making a clear option for these communities over foreign economic interests.
2. At the heart of the synod process and the final document is conversion at the pastoral, cultural, ecological and synodal levels.
3. This special synod—the first Synod of Bishops to be organized around a distinct ecological territory—sought to practice what it preached regarding “integral ecology” and care for our common home.
4. All 120 paragraphs of the synod’sfinal document (currently available in Spanish only) were approved with the necessary two-thirds majority vote, including proposals related to married priests and women deacons.
5. Since his election as pope in March 2013, Pope Francis has transformed the Synod of Bishops into a privileged place of discernment and conversion.
I thought everyone recognised the danger of takeaways to one’s health
Posted by John on January 19, 2020, 8:19 pm, in reply to "A different view"
It’s obviously all passed you by, Faz.
These five takeaways are seriously detrimental to the health of the Church and its members. 1. The synod was prophetic in placing Amazonian and indigenous communities at the center of the synod process and for making a clear option for these communities over foreign economic interests. “foreign economic interests” You mean them steenking Yankees? I’m sure that appeals to your secular political stance, Faz, but that doesn’t make it of any value. And what is it about “indigenous” that seems to add value in the minds of some? The indigenous view, in this regard, is of value only if it accords with the millennia-old values of the Church.
2. At the heart of the synod process and the final document is conversion at the pastoral, cultural, ecological and synodal levels. Any room in there for the ecclesiological, moral and spiritual levels? Apparently not.
3. This special synod—the first Synod of Bishops to be organized around a distinct ecological territory—sought to practice what it preached regarding “integral ecology” and care for our common home. When did ecology become of supreme importance in the Church? Oh, I know; when it surfaced as a convenient political tool in the secular world. I guess that’s really important to you, Faz.
4. All 120 paragraphs of the synod’sfinal document (currently available in Spanish only) were approved with the necessary two-thirds majority vote, including proposals related to married priests and women deacons. 120 naughts are still nothing. The arithmetic is against you, Faz. Then we read:
Even though these highly debated proposals had the most votes against them, the synod was able to find language to satisfy large majorities of voting members.
Finding language? Does that sound like spin to you? Silly me; of course not. You wouldn’t have posted it, Faz, if you weren’t thrilled with it. What was it Saint Paul wrote about those with itching ears heaping to themselves teachers after their own desires, and so being turned away from truth into fables?
5. Since his election as pope in March 2013, Pope Francis has transformed the Synod of Bishops into a privileged place of discernment and conversion. The text then reads
Through the enhanced preparatory process, the increased participation of lay women and men as experts and auditors, the encouragement to speak freely on controversial topics and the rich discussions in small groups, Pope Francis has ensured that the synod is a place of encounter, listening and dialogue with others and with the Spirit, in which everyone is invited to let go of expectations and be open to conversion.
Ah, “dialogue”. That’s the clincher isn’t it? “Dialogue” always leads to truth . . .
. . . to the unthinking. And doubtless “the Spirit” really was involved. The only remaining question is: “Which Spirit?”
When did more of the same become "A different view"
Posted by John on January 19, 2020, 8:25 pm, in reply to "A different view 2"
Did you think we weren't bright enough to pick out the essential fallacies from the mountain of verbiage, Faz?
Or is this just an example of the Goebbels principle of telling the same lie so often it gets accepted as the truth?