The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
ruthenianbyz513, Panteleimon, Cabine, Greg C, AdrianFarrell
5622 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (1 invisible), 7 guests, and 24 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,805
Posts412,288
Members5,622
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Re: Synod on the Family [Re: Michael_Thoma] #408950 10/17/14 12:55 PM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Talon Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Here's this also, by the way...

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/bishops-indicate-move-towards-rewrite-of-synod-relatio

Ok, off the soapbox and out the door...Peace!

smile

Re: Synod on the Family [Re: Michael_Thoma] #408964 10/18/14 09:33 AM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
bkovacs Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 252
Like this article on the synod.
"Roman Breakfast"
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2014/10/roman-breakfast.html

Quote " I think the big hitters will be thinking long term, possibly many African bishops are indeed looking to the next Conclave, to a Pope of non-European origins, thanks to Kasper, they might well be joined by Eastern Europeans, by those living alongside Muslims in the Middle East. Some of the Eastern Rite Catholics might well be thinking that Rome is actually not as effective a centre of unity as Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch or Moscow, especially in times of persecution, especially with a Papacy that has so little sense of 'the Tradition' and that is so Eurocentric and so Liberal. I know of one Eastern Rite priest who has been thinking along these lines ever since the first 'Bona Serra'."

Cannot agree more after this debacle of a synod!. I wish Met Hilarion would not have brought up the Ukraine issue. That's for another place at another time. I'm sure Cardinals could have cared less on hearing about the Ukraine conflict. Not what the synod was for.

Re: Synod on the Family [Re: bkovacs] #408967 10/18/14 01:07 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Peter J Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by bkovacs
Like this article on the synod.
"Roman Breakfast"
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2014/10/roman-breakfast.html

Quote " I think the big hitters will be thinking long term, possibly many African bishops are indeed looking to the next Conclave, to a Pope of non-European origins, thanks to Kasper, they might well be joined by Eastern Europeans, by those living alongside Muslims in the Middle East. Some of the Eastern Rite Catholics might well be thinking that Rome is actually not as effective a centre of unity as Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch or Moscow, especially in times of persecution, especially with a Papacy that has so little sense of 'the Tradition' and that is so Eurocentric and so Liberal. I know of one Eastern Rite priest who has been thinking along these lines ever since the first 'Bona Serra'."

I'm trying to decide whether to call ^^ this "a little glib" or "a little flippant". cool

Re: Synod on the Family [Re: mardukm] #408973 10/18/14 11:11 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 328
JBenedict Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 328
Quote
I explained to him that the Synod document was not about accepting homosexuality per se, but about respecting homosexuals as persons.


Unfortunately, the midterm relatio did use language that suggested positive aspects of homosexuality in and of itself, not just respect for persons. This is why there was such outcry about it.

Thankfully, this was not included in the final documents.

Re: Synod on the Family [Re: JBenedict] #408979 10/19/14 01:06 AM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206
L
likethethief Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by JBenedict
Quote
I explained to him that the Synod document was not about accepting homosexuality per se, but about respecting homosexuals as persons.


Unfortunately, the midterm relatio did use language that suggested positive aspects of homosexuality in and of itself, not just respect for persons. This is why there was such outcry about it.

Thankfully, this was not included in the final documents.


The Relatio was written by a very small group. The strong response by the other bishops of the Synod, who as was pointed out saw that Relatio for the first time after we all saw it, made clear it was not representative of the discussion the first week. Also, the English language translation had a number of significant errors.

The ten summary reports of the small language groups and the concluding Message give a clearer picture of their discussions. Personally I was impressed favorably with the picture of the Synod HH Francis gave in his address to the Synod Fathers at the conclusion.

It will be interesting to see how these reports are used in the next 12 months before the Synod next year.

Re: Synod on the Family [Re: Epiphanius] #408980 10/19/14 01:53 AM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Talon Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Epiphanius
Originally Posted by Talon
Originally Posted by JBenedict
Originally Posted by Talon
Courage has always had two thumbs up from the Church and always will.

Which is what makes it signifigant that [the leader of Courage has stated]
Quote
I am most concerned for the people who are part of the Courage apostolate. They trust that what the Church teaches on homosexuality is true. They are striving with God’s grace to live that teaching, amid other voices — including their own families — telling them to live another way and find a partner.

They look at this language with dismay, concern and some pain. They count on the voice of the Church to keep them strong and reassure them that the choices they have made are true. The Church gives them strength to persevere.

I also think about our EnCourage parents and their struggle to trust what the Church teaches is true, when there are many other voices in the legislature and judiciary that want to normalize same-sex unions.

And I sympathize with his concern - to a degree. Those of weaker faith are more easily manipulated than those with stronger faith, and we are all our brothers' keeper to some extent in life. So, we should all be concerned...a LITTLE bit.

However, the expression "making a mountain out of a molehill" comes to mind here for me since the inherent sinfulness of homosexual activity is as basic to life as the Trinity

Brother Talon,

If everyone saw things from this perspective, there would be *no* issue whatsoever. However, as I posted earlier in this thread:
Quote
In 1970, the American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders. Since that time, more and more people have interpreted this action as meaning that "science" has "proven" that homosexuality is "perfectly normal." Now, once this proposition is accepted as "true," it necessarily follows that *everything* society does to honor and celebrate love between man and woman should now apply equally to "love" between two men or two women.

This is what we're up against!

Not long ago, an accusation of homosexuality could be career ending in politics, as well as most areas of business (the exceptions being fashion and entertainment). People with SSAs, for the most part, either acted them out discreetly, or not at all. The 1970 decision of the APA had far-reaching implications, and almost immediately the Gay Rights movement was born. This movement has continued gaining strength every year since then, and their goal is nothing less than being treated as equal in every respect to straight people (with regard to both the law and other social institutions).

The problem here is that people are listening. A number of polls have been taken on this subject, and they have all shown a consistent pattern in which the younger someone is, the more likely it is that he/she sees no reason to discriminate in any way against LGBT people or regard their behavior as unacceptable (and it's not that they change as they get older, the numbers just keep going down).

So, what does this mean for the Church? Only that we're facing a world in which the idea of homosesuality being sinful seems increasingly ridiculous, intolerant and indefensible. In such an atmosphere, the slightest hint that the Church has "changed its position" will be taken as meaning just that, and this means that any Catholic that tries to hold out will now be ridiculed and accused of "rejecting the Church's teaching" (and bishops will have a hard time keeping gay priests in check).

Originally Posted by Talon
for one thing, and the pope and bishops are guardians of the truth, not authors of it ...

The problem here is that in the world of politics, the concept of "truth" has little meaning apart from what side you take on a given issue. People generally believe what seems credible to them, based on what they understand to be true (which usually means what's been presented to them in a consistent manner).

Furthermore, ISTM there was *no* reason to go publishing a working document like that, and whoever was responsible for doing so was either woefully ignorant, or knew it would have the effect I described--and wanted that effect. (Not that I wouldn't still hope that's not the case, but ...)


Peace,
Deacon Richard



So, Deacon, I guess I just want to summarize my concern in the following fashion - While appreciating and agreeing with the idea that there are "cultural forces" operating at any given time in society, with which the Church should be familiar and "responsive" to in some manner or another...does this have to mean, then, that the Church is essentially "held hostage" in every age by prevailing "zeitgeist"? (Open-ended question.)

To strike a tone that, ironically, modernists would appreciate - Is she never free to "simply be herself"?

Last edited by Talon; 10/19/14 02:04 AM.
Re: Synod on the Family [Re: JBenedict] #408981 10/19/14 02:18 AM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Talon Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by JBenedict

Unfortunately, the midterm relatio did use language that suggested positive aspects of homosexuality in and of itself, not just respect for persons. This is why there was such outcry about it.


Per the article that you yourself posted with Fr. Check of Courage, there was one solitary phrase in the whole relatio that was problematic. And even it didn't suggest support for homosexuality, in my humble opinion, it suggested simple linguistic confusion.

Are we capable of "valuing the sexuality" of people with same-sex attraction, was the only phrase in the whole document (that I am aware of) that could possibly cause umbrage...And I myself have to confess to not even knowing what that phrase means, lol. Can we "value their sexuality" (while - the document added immediately afterward - remaining faithful to Catholic doctrine)?

What does that mean???

The fact that this puzzling phrase received the dramatic reaction it did is far more troubling to me than the insertion of the phrase itself into a document that was never meant to be public in the first place, and that otherwise amounts to extremely little in terms of the Church's official teaching.

Re: Synod on the Family [Re: Michael_Thoma] #408982 10/19/14 02:35 AM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Talon Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
*Facepalm*

http://sojo.net/blogs/2014/10/16/change-translation-epitomizes-bishops%E2%80%99-debate-over-gays

...(Assuming the report is true) Not helpful.

"As long as you check your sins at the door, the Church welcomes everyone but those with same-sex attraction. YOU people (the ones trying to be chaste, let's be clear) all need to stay outside in the courtyard. We'll set up speakers and preach out to you from inside."

That's awesome. frown




Last edited by Talon; 10/19/14 02:36 AM.
Re: Synod on the Family [Re: Talon] #408983 10/19/14 06:13 AM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
B
BenjaminRH Offline
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
It is clear that the controversial- nay, scandalous- paragraph 50 of the first relatio was the sole work of Archbishop Bruno Forte.

Western liberal Catholics would have exploited these vague phrases to promote heresy. That is seemingly a prime characteristic of the nefarious Spirit of Vatican II.

While we were sleeping: Cardinal Baldisseri, General Secretary of the Synod, was not originally going to permit the publication of the Circuli Minores, the comments from the various language groups that came to denounce the shocking nature of this radical document. That's when a strong majority of Synod Fathers rose up to denounce this manipulation, lead off by Cardinal Pell.

This was damn near a Robber Synod. Nefarious schemes were afoot- still are, and now we can see how utterly dangerous complacency is, even within the confines of the Church.

Re: Synod on the Family [Re: Michael_Thoma] #408984 10/19/14 06:21 AM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
B
BenjaminRH Offline
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
IMHO, how this Synod was conducted should outrage all faithful Catholics, no matter your Rite.

Re: Synod on the Family [Re: Michael_Thoma] #408988 10/19/14 12:08 PM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
T
Talon Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
As has been amply demonstrated over the past twenty years since the release of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, "liberals" don't need ambiguity to promote heresy. If you're hell bent on following your own way (i.e. trying to make sure women are ordained some day), no level of explicit orthodoxy is ever going to stand in your way.

On the flip side of that same coin, let's try hard to make sure we "conservatives" are not, indeed, exploiting the media reports of what has happened at the synod in a different way - to justify sinful antipathy toward and distance from others.

There have been "nefarious schemes afoot" in the Church since her very origin with the plot of Judas and there probably always will be. Thank God for his promise that the Church will never defect.

Are we ready to follow the footsteps of Christ who, in response to having his words misconstrued at his trial, simply remained prayerfully quiet? Or must we demonstrate weak faith and a lack of charity by barking really loudly over every small misstep of the clergy that has all since been corrected (and then some) by brother bishops?

May the Lord's peace and wisdom be with us all as we proceed.

Last edited by Talon; 10/19/14 12:15 PM.
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3