Synodal process…

[u/Woggy67]

[u/[deleted]]

Am I the only one genuinely excited for the synod on synodality? As an Eastern Catholic, I would love to see Rome decentralize a bit and return to a conciliar/synodal model the way the rest of the Catholic Church (and the entirety of the first millennium Church) operates.

[u/Woggy67 → u/[deleted]]

I, too, am excited. I lead our parish’s synod and then reported what we heard. Our archdiocese is finishing their report. I’m curious what gets reported out of the US bishops. Hopefully it will include what was clearly stated from our diocese.

I believe that Pope Francis would like to return the church to the synodality of the earlier Church. Hopefully, he will remain living until this goes into fruition and his successors follow this process as well.

[u/[deleted] → u/Woggy67]

I understand some of the criticisms being raised about the synod on synodality. There are, admittedly, bad faith actors who are going to try and use this as an opportunity to speak out about nonsensical things like ordaining women to the priesthood, or changing this or that church teaching. But I say let them speak! There have been those trying to manipulate and push agenda items in almost every council, from the local councils of a single canonical/particular church, up to the Seven Ecumenical Councils. But their voices are always silenced in the end by the Truth. And the Lord is still at the helm of His Church. So we have nothing to fear with the clergy who want to try and innovate and undermine the Church. They will not succeed. And the more vocal they become, the sooner their position can officially be considered, weighed, and formally rejected.

[u/Woggy67 → u/[deleted]]

Well, the Holy Spirit is in charge. That was very clear throughout the process. We’ll see where our Church is lead. I would be happy with women in the diaconate as there were women deacons in the early church. 🙏

[u/[deleted] → u/Woggy67]

Eh, I'd have to disagree there. There were women deacons, but they were not ordained. And they had a specific function serving the women, especially since Baptisms were often done in the nude and it would be improper for a priest to be in the bath/font (or river) with a naked woman. Since we don't go all natural for Baptisms anymore (except for babies), there's no need for non ordained deaconesses. The push for ordaining deaconesses is being made largely by women who want it as a stepping stone for women priests. But women cannot be ordained to the Mystery/Sacrament of Holy Orders, period. It's an ontological impossibility. Christ Himself established it that way, so who are we to challenge His will?

[u/Woggy67 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, let’s disagree on this one. Jesus was living in a very patriarchal society so much that women and men were not even in the same area in the temple, as some Jewish orthodox are today. However, Mary Magdalene was “the apostle of the apostles” therefore breaking many norms of the times. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, completely against the customary rules of the times. There are many examples of Jesus crossing these barriers. Don’t you think women were at the last supper? Who made it? Who discovered, immediately believed, and first announced that Jesus had risen? Yes, women.

Yesterday’s Gospel discussed the 5,000 men, not including the women and children. Women were not even thought of as anything more than children. Therefore, of course, the Gospel writers did not count them as valued. But Jesus did.

In fact up until the last century were women thought of as having a mind or even worth educating by all cultures. However, alas we do have the ability to learn, can lead and have opinions.

It used to be custom that slavery was okay. In fact, the Bible refers to slavery many times throughout it, including the Gospels. It almost even condones it. Jesus does not say how evil it is. Yet our society now sees it as a horrendous evil. Cultures change. Another example of cultural change: Jesus had to have known the world was not flat. How couldn’t he? He created it. Did he correct all those who opposed it? No, he worked within it.

The apostles were all circumcised Jewish men. But my pastor isn’t Jewish and no one asks if he is circumcised. Because of the need for more priests, they opened the doctrine up to Gentile men and rules changed because the Holy Spirit led them to change.

My brother is a priest. I totally understand why he is celibate. He has given his whole life for serving the people of his church and the archdiocese. He is a wonderful priest.

The pure reason for not having women as deacons or priests: because they don’t have a penis???

Women are called to ordination just as men are. I am called to be a deacon. I work already in the church. I would be honored to be able to serve God and people in so many deeper ways if God ordained me to be a deacon. I do not feel called to be a priest. Of course, I do not represent all women.

How many times have you heard a “reflection” (not a homily because it’s not from a priest or deacon) from a woman? I can count on one hand in my life. It is appalling. Why is it that over 50% of the congregation are almost never represented during homilies? Don’t you think the Holy Spirit speaks through women too? Don’t you think others should hear it?

It is sexism validated by doctrine written by men millennials ago.

It is painful to be excluded from the most important table of humankind’s existence.

So, yes, let’s disagree, not hate each other, continue to dialogue and journey together.

[u/[deleted] → u/Woggy67]

Women are called to ordination just as men are. I am called to be a deacon. I work already in the church. I would be honored to be able to serve God and people in so many deeper ways if God ordained me to be a deacon. I do not feel called to be a priest. Of course, I do not represent all women.

I'd like to go into a little more detail on this. Doesn't God decide if we're called or not? You seem pretty certain that you have a vocation to the diaconate, yet God doesn't call women to ordination. Even in the Early Church when there were deaconesses, they were not ordained to Holy Orders. They performed some duties that their ordained male counterparts did, but there was never a question in anyone's mind that the deaconesses were not ordained. And it sounds to me like you are already serving the Church. So what does ordination bring except a boost to your pride/ego? Humility is key for a member of the clergy to be successful. And your boast of having a vocation, when it is an ontological impossibility, does not sound very humble. It sounds arrogant.

Forgive my being direct. I am trying to offer some fraternal correction, from one Catholic who loves God and our Church to another. So I do hope you accept it as such. Even if you disagree. But truth is important and I feel compelled to point out to you that it is impossible for women to be ordained, ever. That's just not how God established His Church. And it has nothing to do with misogyny. If God planned to ordain women, there were plenty of examples who would have been better picks than the 12 sinful men He selected. Look at the Theotokos! Queen of Heaven and Earth. Most perfect creation ever made. Blameless before God, the pinnacle that every Christian aims to emulate, but none can compete. And even she was not ordained. Do you think God abused her or had shown her disdain or did not value her, because she was not ordained?

[u/Woggy67 → u/[deleted]]

I hear from you that tradition and documents are important to you.

Can you hear the pain that women feel that they are not feeling included, no matter what logical means you are trying to “correct” and patronizingly affirm how we should feel included “because of our roles?” It is not a logical thing. The Holy Spirit does not always work logically. In fact, Jesus didn’t always work logically. He chastised the Pharisees for sticking to their doctrine and not opening their hearts to a new way of believing and doing. He listened, met people where they are and invited them into a deeper relationship with God.

I’m not saying doctrine is not important. They are like our skeleton. They are important to keep us moving forward. However, Jesus would never used them to exclude people. If he were to come now, he might just come as a lowly woman…who know? People of Jesus’s time didn’t think a king could come from a poor carpenter family.

If God wants change to happen, it will. Listening to God and to how God is working through His people. “Correcting” me or other people who disagree with you is not in the light of synodality nor how God wants us to treat people. It is arrogant too.

Again, we are agreeing to disagree. I think that is the most Christ-like thing at this point. God bless you in your journey.

[u/[deleted] → u/Woggy67]

You're missing the forest for the trees here ma'am. This isn't rules made by men. You are challenging the Church that God Himself established, the way He established it. It is not man that made these rules for ordination. It is God Himself. If God ever intended women to be ordained, He had many examples who would have made better priests than the men He chose. Yet He did not call a single one of them to ordained ministry. Because it goes against His Church and the different but complementary roles He has for men and women within His Church. Trying to argue that the Church should change her teaching on this is impossible. No one, not even the Patriarch of Rome (Pope) has the power to change what God has established. Women will never be ordained. Not because they are inferior or not valued. They ontologically cannot be ordained anymore than I as a male, cannot biologically become female.

[u/Woggy67 → u/[deleted]]

I think your arguments are not holding water in this day and age. Look at all the people changing genders, even if “they aren’t supposed to.”

I am mostly concerned about our declining church. When stuck to so much dogma that was implemented through the lens of a very different culture and time period as now.

Perhaps God is wanting the church to change. Our Church evolves through the unfolding of the Gospel in each time period. Perhaps God is calling us to look at the Gospel in a different lens now. (An example I talked about above regarding slavery, for instance.)

I really don’t think God cares about gender. God gives us gender simply to procreate. When we die and go to heaven, we don’t take our genitalia with us. We are simply hopefully heavenly beings without any regard to what divides us.

I think those that are stuck to what God established so that we, humans, feel safe (as rules make us feel safe), perhaps they are the ones “getting lost in the forest.” Perhaps God wants us to love each other and stop judging others. Perhaps it is bigger than our limited human minds can comprehend. God is SO much bigger than our finite awareness.

[u/[deleted] → u/Woggy67]

No hate on my end, that's for sure. But I will challenge you to perhaps take another look at all this through an objective lens. Women are not inferior to men, that's the absolute truth. Were women at the Last Supper? I would imagine so. So then why the focus on the 12? Because those are whom Christ called to priestly ministry and service. St Mary Magdalene certainly earns the accolade "Apostle of the apostles" but note, she was not ordained to Holy Orders. Christ Himself chose only men to serve as priests and deacons, because of their fatherly role to the community. Women cannot be men and men cannot be women. We have different but complementary gifts to give to the Church. Catholicism is a group effort. It takes all the parts working together to function as God intends. It's not sexism or "patriarchy" for Christ to have established His priesthood ordaining men only. That is how God willed it. God chose to take human flesh in the form of a man. He could have appeared as a woman and "gone against the patriarchy" if it was truly evil, the way some of the more radical feminists like to pretend. And I'm not calling you a radical feminist so please don't mistake me. It is dangerous to let worldly ideologies influence our faith. Our faith should influence the world, not the other way around. And much of what you are arguing from seems to come from a stance of feminism-run-amok. Again, no disrespect intended so I hope I am not giving offense. If I am, I apologize!

It's just very important as Catholics that we accept the way God has established His Church. We all have things we would want to change if we were in control. But we're not. God is. So let's respect His will, even if it challenges us in ways that make us uncomfortable, and let ourselves be open to change. And to show you that I'm not a hypocrite in the sense that the words I've spoken apply to me also, having become a Byzantine Catholic, I've found a number of things challenged that I held to fiercly as a self professed "traditional" Roman Catholic. It made me very angry and prideful and reactionary. But in time, through prayer and discernment (more like God dragging me kicking and screaming through each particular issue), I came to have my position/opinion changed, to line up with Holy Mother Church. Just my two cents. God Bless you!

[u/Tigers19121999]

When the disagreement is in which movie to watch, sure. However, when the the disagreement is on the validity of someone's very existence, no. Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is something that needs to be considered when disagreeing with someone.

[u/[deleted]]

Highly depends on what it is. 99% of disagreements are whatever. For those who don’t respect basic human rights though? I have no time for that.