Remnant video on the Synod

[Peace]

I think the content of the video is worth discussion. I honestly can't find much in the video that I can say that I agree with, but I think it is at least worth debating whether some of the assertions he makes in the video are legitimate.

The main problem that I have with the video is that the author makes his points in a way that seem divisive, rather than in a way that is supposed to really benefit the Church. I just kind of sense that he does not submit to authority. I get a sense that if the Church leadership does A, he will advocate B. If the Church leadership does B, then he will advocate A. He seems like he wants to be in charge and dictate to other people the way that things should be, and he seems to like to get a bit judgy and point the finger at other people.

Whether that is true or not I dunno - but that is definitely the vibe I got from him when watching the video. . .

[veritasluxmea]

Ooookay, this thread is sad. Here's my two cents, not that it matters. 

First of all, the only two things you can really peg on AD are 1) "poisonous wells of the NO" and 2) talking nasty about church leaders. 

1) AD already addressed this and stated her views, which align with the Church. Really, this is enough to be a solid Catholic around here. I remember when Benedictus' phishy tag was taken off, he technically didn't recant his previous views- just said he agreed with what the Church taught. It was enough for a CM tag. If anything, she should just be given a warning or told next time if she links to something that say something like that- make sure her real views are clear. 

2) I agree it's not ok to talk rudely or condescendingly about anyone, even if it's true. I personally don't write or talk like that. But that was how the guy made his opinion, and the information he had, known. AD didn't talk that way. She posted something trying to get her opinion across. At most, you could warn her not to link to anything "rude", or to write it out in her nice tone of voice instead. You'd also have to peg me for that too (see democratic debate thread). If you really don't want anything that sounds rude or disrespectful posted, please make it a forum rule instead of saying "it's ok in this thread but not this thread". That's confusing. 

I would love it if she told me to delete the video because it's trash, shows a complete and utter lack of respect for the pope and magisterium, and does absolutely nothing to build up and glorify Christ's church. That would definitely remove the Phishy tag.

Is that what it takes to get a phishy tag around here? I have name recommendations.

It was a badly made video but technically his main views on the synod are ok. I suspect they are correct too. I choose not to follow the Church or Pope on the higher levels and focus more on my own life and diocese, because I can't do more for them than pray and it's such a sorry situation. I get the feeling Pope Francis is trying his best and his personally holy, but for whatever reasons has a difficult time handling and addressing the "wolves" and their agenda. I don't fault him for it, JPII did as well. But being chicken little about it isn't helping either. Is it even possible to make a video criticizing the Church or point out corruption and concern without sounding aggressive and extreme? I've never found one. The guy seems to think the Catholic Church will end but it won't. The Church changed a lot after Vat II and maybe it will change again after this synod, but we'll still have the truth with us and keep soldiering on. I do believe in the good Catholics I've met. 

[dUSt]

I don't fall for fancy words and arguments and will not get hung up in semantics. The bottom line is she is endorsing and agreeing with a video that is clearly vitriol, and harmful to the magisterium of Christ's church.

[Benedictus]

Ooookay, this thread is sad. Here's my two cents, not that it matters. 

First of all, the only two things you can really peg on AD are 1) "poisonous wells of the NO" and 2) talking nasty about church leaders. 

1) AD already addressed this and stated her views, which align with the Church. Really, this is enough to be a solid Catholic around here. I remember when Benedictus' phishy tag was taken off, he technically didn't recant his previous views- just said he agreed with what the Church taught. It was enough for a CM tag. If anything, she should just be given a warning or told next time if she links to something that say something like that- make sure her real views are clear. 

Please don't drag me into this. I wrote long posts sorting out my situation, and I did make my case.  It wasn't as simple as you state, but whatever. You're specifically digging up old wounds to make a case that doesn't concern you personally. This thread doesn't have my paws anywhere near it, and that's fine by me!  Ancilla Domini can clarify her position on the specific posts raised, if she wants, without all the extra background noise.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Benedictus

[CrossCuT]

I think it smells of elderberries that we resort to ostracizing so quickly. The Phishy tag holds weight here and I dont think it should be handed out so quickly especially since she loses forum privileges such as private messaging. When I came out as a non Catholic Dust immediately slapped me with the Phishy tag even thought I didnt fit the criteria. Luckily he realized his mistake and changed it to Non-Catholic instead.

 

But if Ancillia admits that the tag is appropriate and wouild rather be honest than take the wrong title, there isn't much else to be said.

Any time you agree with me I want to immediately change my opinion. I will resist the urge for Ancilla's sake.

Cry me a river

Edited October 27, 2015 by CrossCuT

[KnightofChrist]

I don't fall for fancy words and arguments and will not get hung up in semantics. The bottom line is she is endorsing and agreeing with a video that is clearly vitriol, and harmful to the magisterium of Christ's church.

Though she may deserve her punishment, in this year of mercy I pray that you will show her mercy.

[Credo in Deum]

I specifically do agree with the Catholic Church; and it is because I agree with the Catholic Church that I do not agree with those within it who wish to change or water down the teachings.

I agree with your stance.  Some of the things which were said by the bishops are concerning, and down right scary.  The quote below is one of those quotes:

"“The Synod is putting an end to the Church that judges people. We are not a church of judgement. We are a welcoming church, listening to the people and speaking in clear terms. Tenderness is the word of this Synod. This is the beginning of a new Church.”
—Archbishop Lucas Van Looy, Ghent, Belgium"

 It seems that if you don't operate within this new "spirit of the synod" mentality then you are part of that old Church that judged people.  I fear it is only a matter of time until all sorts of whacky stuff is introduced into parishes under the motto "spirit of the synod."  Yet I expect this to happen since the Church, being the Mystical Body of Christ, must entire into its own Passion and be beaten until it is unrecognizable, like Christ was beaten during His Passion. Regardless, we must stay close, Ancillia, since the Church will conquer this and rise again in all Her glory.   Let's pray and draw close to Our Lady,  like Saint John, so that we will remain faithful to the Church even when it comes down to only one bishop and a hand full of holy laity at the foot of the Cross.

 

[Ancilla Domini]

I agree with your stance.  Some of the things which were said by the bishops are concerning, and down right scary.  The quote below is one of those quotes:

"“The Synod is putting an end to the Church that judges people. We are not a church of judgement. We are a welcoming church, listening to the people and speaking in clear terms. Tenderness is the word of this Synod. This is the beginning of a new Church.”
—Archbishop Lucas Van Looy, Ghent, Belgium"

 It seems that if you don't operate within this new "spirit of the synod" mentality then you are part of that old Church that judged people.  I fear it is only a matter of time until all sorts of whacky stuff is introduced into parishes under the motto "spirit of the synod."  Yet I expect this to happen since the Church, being the Mystical Body of Christ, must entire into its own Passion and be beaten until it is unrecognizable, like Christ was beaten during His Passion. Regardless, we must stay close, Ancillia, since the Church will conquer this and rise again in all Her glory.   Let's pray and draw close to Our Lady,  like Saint John, so that we will remain faithful to the Church even when it comes down to only one bishop and a hand full of holy laity at the foot of the Cross.

I would prop your post if I still had propping abilities, Credo.

Some of the quotes are definitely quite scary.

Cardinal Turkson, during the synod, talked about how, when he was studying theology in the US in the 1970s, the manual still listed homosexuality as an abnormality.

But, to quote,

Non verifiable quote. Deleted. -dUSt

– Cardinal Turkson

Our prayers are definitely so needed right now; and yes, we need our Lady's help very much.

[Peace]

I agree with your stance.  Some of the things which were said by the bishops are concerning, and down right scary.  The quote below is one of those quotes:

"“The Synod is putting an end to the Church that judges people. We are not a church of judgement. We are a welcoming church, listening to the people and speaking in clear terms. Tenderness is the word of this Synod. This is the beginning of a new Church.”
—Archbishop Lucas Van Looy, Ghent, Belgium"

 It seems that if you don't operate within this new "spirit of the synod" mentality then you are part of that old Church that judged people.  I fear it is only a matter of time until all sorts of whacky stuff is introduced into parishes under the motto "spirit of the synod."  Yet I expect this to happen since the Church, being the Mystical Body of Christ, must entire into its own Passion and be beaten until it is unrecognizable, like Christ was beaten during His Passion. Regardless, we must stay close, Ancillia, since the Church will conquer this and rise again in all Her glory.   Let's pray and draw close to Our Lady,  like Saint John, so that we will remain faithful to the Church even when it comes down to only one bishop and a hand full of holy laity at the foot of the Cross.

 

It often seems that many view "the church of the past" as some ideal that must be inherently superior to the church of today or the church of the future.

Should that necessarily be the case? There seems to be some feeling out there that the Church is just doomed to get worse and worse until Jesus returns. Is there any biblical precedent for that view?

It seems to me that change can move in either a positive direction or a negative direction. It is not like the Church of yesteryear did not have its own internal problems.

It is actually possible that the current leadership of the Church is moving the church in a better direction. Just because that direction may not be the same exact direction in which the Church has moved in the past, does not mean that the direction in which it wants to move is not a better direction.

[Ice_nine]

when your faith is predicated on the idea that it is the ancient truth handed down from Christ Himself and preserved through the apostolic line, well "going in a better direction" doesn't cut it. Anything that departs from the ancient faith is suspect.

Of course church members and church clergy have remained faithful or unfaithful to the ancient faith in various degrees throughout history. That  hasn't been so linear.

[dUSt]

 

But, to quote,

Non verifiable quote. Deleted. -dUSt

– Cardinal Turkson

 

Can you please link me to the source of this quote?

Edited October 28, 2015 by dUSt

[Ancilla Domini]

Can you please link me to the source of this quote?

I have no link for it, actually. It is mentioned in the video, and it is also backed up by my father, who attended the conference in which it was said.

Also, I responded to @CrossCuT , but it seems that my reply was either deleted or lost, or something of that sort, before it was approved. I'm not sure what happened there. Can it be found?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Ancilla Domini

[Peace]

when your faith is predicated on the idea that it is the ancient truth handed down from Christ Himself and preserved through the apostolic line, well "going in a better direction" doesn't cut it. Anything that departs from the ancient faith is suspect.

Of course church members and church clergy have remained faithful or unfaithful to the ancient faith in various degrees throughout history. That  hasn't been so linear.

What specifically does your "ancient faith" consist of?

I think that the Church teaches that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. I don't think we have a hard date on that - but let's say that date was around AD 120 for the sake of argument.

So then are you saying that the year AD 121 was the "pinnacle" of the Church's adherence to the ancient faith? And that anything that deviates from the state of the Church in AD 121 must therefore be a departure from the ancient faith?

I do not see why that needs to be the case. Why cannot it be the case that the Church changed and became closer to the ancient faith in the year AD 122 than it was in the year AD 121?

Take the US Constitution as an example. I think it was ratified in 1787. Does that mean that the state of America in the year 1787 adhered more closely to the ideals set forth in the Constitution in the year 1787 than at the end of the Civil War or after the Civil Rights Laws were enacted? Of course not. The country moved in a different direction by way of ending slavery and legalized discrimination. It changed greatly from the country as it was when the Constitution was ratified, but become something that was closer to the ideals set forth in the Constitution.

So I don't really see why something like that is not also possible with the Catholic Church. If you assume that the Church at the time of the death of the last apostle was in complete adherence with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, then of course any change in the Church after that point it time is a deviation away from the ancient faith. But I do not see any reason to assume that was the case. If the Church at that point in time was not in complete adherence, then any (non-dogmatic) change that you have could be either a departure away from the ancient faith, or a movement towards it.

In short, I do not necessary think that any particular point in the past has to be the ideal to which we should be striving to return. It could be that the ideal lies somewhere else, and that a change in the church can at the same time be a deviation with the past, and something that is more consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

But I think you knew that.

[dUSt]

I have no link for it, actually. It is mentioned in the video, and it is also backed up by my father, who attended the conference in which it was said.

Also, I responded to @CrossCuT , but it seems that my reply was either deleted or lost, or something of that sort, before it was approved. I'm not sure what happened there. Can it be found?

OK, please feel free to post the quote again once it can be verified. I deleted it.

[Ancilla Domini]

OK, please feel free to post the quote again once it can be verified. I deleted it.

Deleted the quote, or my response to CrossCuT? ...or both?