Earlier this week, the Instrumentum Laboris for the upcoming Synod on the Amazon was published by the so-called “Holy See.” At present, the text is not available in English. Here, I will refer to my own translation of the Italian text (with help from Google translate).
The document is, like many Bergoglian texts, very lengthy; nearly 20,000 words (Hey, a lot of verbiage is required to create a new religion!) and so we will take just an abbreviated look at some of the good news contained therein.
As others have already pointed out, the Synod is going to promote what can only be described as a radical inculturation of the liturgy. This includes the following as found in Chapter III, which is entitled: The celebration of faith: an inculturated liturgy.
“We must have the courage to find the new signs, the new symbols, a new flesh for the transmission of the Word, the different forms of beauty that are manifested in various cultural environments …” Without this inculturation, the liturgy can be reduced to a “museum piece” or a “possession of a few.”
Here, the text is quoting His Humble Hereticalness (from Evangelii Gaudium); something we find throughout the document. Note the urgency; it is said that the task of finding (and, of course, implementing) all of these “new” things for use in the liturgy is a “must.”
While Jorge is the focus of much outrage in this call for inculturation, let it be said that he’s simply following the Council’s prescription:
In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. (SC 40)
Apparently, he has decided that the Amazon is one of those places, and the difficulties just aren’t that big a deal! The text goes on:
The celebration of faith must take place with inculturation because it is an expression of one’s own religious experience and of the bond of communion of the celebrating community. An inculturated liturgy will also be a sounding board for the struggles and aspirations of the communities and a transformative impulse towards a “land without evils”. (Art. 125)
To be very clear, when the Instrumentum Laboris speaks of “liturgy,” it is referring to the Mass in particular (as opposed to the Office). What stands out in the above is the description of the Mass; “an expression of one’s own religious experience” and the community’s “bond,” etc.
This focus on individual experience is part and parcel of Modernism. As Pope St. Pius X stated in Pascendi Diminici Gregis – On the Doctrines of the Modernists:
For the Modernist Believer, it is an established and certain fact that the divine reality does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the Believer rests, they answer: In the experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists … fall into the opinion of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. (cf Pascendi Diminici Gregis – 14) [Emphasis in original]
This being so, it comes as little surprise that Jorge & Co.’s vision for the liturgy is eminently Protestant as well; that is, an earthbound action centered on individual religious experiences (false or otherwise), the purpose of which is to showcase the collective burdens, hopes and dreams of the community as a means of purifying itself.
In this, there is neither room for, nor need of, the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the Sacraments – Holy Orders, as we shall see, among them. Indeed, there is no need for the Church in this scenario!
Pope St. Pius X went on to further explain Modernist thinking:
They assert, therefore, the existence of a real religious experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience …. when a person acquires it, makes him properly and truly a believer … Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with the other doctrine of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. (ibid. 14, 15)
True to form, the Modernists presently running the show in Rome churned out the following in the Instrumentum Laboris:
The original diversity offered by the Amazon region – biological, religious and cultural – evokes a new Pentecost … The Synod is a great opportunity for the Church to discover the incarnated and active presence of God … in the expressions of popular religiosity. (cf Instrumentum Art. 30, 32)
Yes, you read that correctly, a new Pentecost! Bear in mind; the “popular religiosity” under discussion here is pagan. According to the World Wildlife Fund:
Amazon people and religious beliefs: The spiritual world is extremely important to the indigenous people of South America, a world they claim to get closer to by utilizing plants that contain certain hallucinogens. One of the most important persons to many indigenous groups is the shaman, who holds the knowledge of local plants and animals, and who is believed to communicate with the spirit world.
The Preparatory Document published in June of 2018 already conveyed the Synod’s high esteem for the “wise elders” of Amazonian paganism:
Spirituality and wisdom: The indigenous peoples of the Amazon Basin diverse spiritualities and beliefs motivate them to live in communion with the soil, water, trees, animals, and with day and night. Wise elders – called interchangeably “payés, mestres, wayanga or shamans”, among others – promote the harmony of people among themselves and with the cosmos.
So, if all that has been said thus far is followed to a T, it seems that at least some of the Synod’s cardinals and bishops might consider hosting a breakout session where they can ingest some hallucinogens whilest consulting with the shamans in order to – get this – “discover the incarnated and active presence of God.”
And how will God feel about this? According to the Instrumentum, He’ll be delighted:
Love lived in every religion pleases God. (Art. 39)
Returning now to the Synod’s treatment of liturgy, the following “tips” for the desired inculturation include the following: [The subheading “Tips” appears more than a dozen times in the text; a word well-chosen inasmuch as they represent merely the tip of a much larger iceberg.]
It is suggested that the celebrations are of a festive type with their own music and dance, in native languages and clothes, in communion with nature and with the community. A liturgy that responds to one’s own culture so that it is the source and summit of their Christian life (cf. SC 10) and linked to their struggles, sufferings and joys. (Art. 126) [Emphasis Added]
Note the reference to Sacrosanctum Concilum – the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II. Now, I’ll be the first to say that the conciliar text is fatally flawed (as noted above), but the citation in Art. 126 is tantamount to a blatant lie.
Indeed, SC 10 states “The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows.” The reason this is so was given in SC 7, and guess what, it has nothing whatsoever to do with one’s own culture or liturgical inculturation; rather, it is:
… because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree. (SC 7)
The “tips” go on to caution against “the rigidity of a discipline that excludes and alienates.” As an example of what this might mean moving forward, the text declares:
Communities have difficulty in celebrating the Eucharist frequently due to the lack of priests. “The Church lives on the Eucharist” and the Eucharist builds the Church. For this reason, instead of leaving the communities without the Eucharist, change the selection and preparation criteria of the ministers authorized to celebrate it. (ibid.)
Note the wording: It does not say, “change the selection and preparation criteria” for priests, but rather of “the ministers authorized to celebrate it.”
Already, the conciliar church has laypersons and so-called permanent deacons presiding over so-called “Communion Services;” therefore, this obviously refers to the Mass. With this in mind, it seems that there is at least an open-mindedness among the Bergoglians to consider the idea of persons other than priests “celebrating the Eucharist.”
As a further indication that this might be so, the text goes on to say:
The Church must incarnate in Amazonian cultures that possess a high sense of community, equality and solidarity, for which clericalism is not accepted in its various forms of manifestation … It would be appropriate to reconsider the idea that the exercise of jurisdiction (power of government) must be linked in all areas (sacramental, judicial, administrative) and permanently to the Sacrament of Order. (cf Art. 127)
Get that? The “sacramental” life of the Church [sic] need not be linked to Holy Orders!
While most other commentators seem to be hung-up on whether or not mandatory priestly celibacy is on the chopping block; the bigger story is that the priesthood itself is in play. Now, it may not come to pass, but it certainly appears as if the higher-ups (meaning, Bergoglio on down) envision laypeople celebrating the Mass or, better stated, some perversion thereof.
On that note, even though there is much more that could be said, this is enough for now.
Given the title to this post, I suspect that many readers are eagerly awaiting the “Good News.” The truth is, however, you just read it. Why do I say this?
Let’s recap. Based on this limited examination of the Instrumentum Laboris alone, the Synod on the Amazon promises to include:
– A testament to God’s supposed will for religious diversity.
– A bold celebration of paganism; in particular, earth and nature worship.
– Displays of deference to witchdoctors and shamans, with a desire to “discover the incarnated and active presence of God” in their false religion.
– A deliberate recasting of the Mass as an action of “the community.”
– A push for the radical inculturation of the liturgy; including native music and dance.
– A concerted effort to de-emphasize the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
– An effort to grant “sacramental, judicial, and administrative” authority to laypersons.
All of this is wonderful news! How so?
No one with even a shred of sensus Catholicus – and I include in this many sincere so-called “conservatives” – can possibly witness such a spectacle and fail to conclude, or at the very least strongly suspect, the following (which has been obvious to most readers of this space for some time):
– Jorge Bergoglio is not a member of the Holy Catholic Church; rather, he is her enemy.
– The same holds true for many of those handpicked by him to lead the Synod.
– The Novus Ordo is not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; it isn’t a Catholic rite at all.
– Vatican II lies at the heart of this mess as the Instrumentum’s use of the phrase “New Pentecost” and its multiple references to the conciliar text make plain.
– The conciliar church is not the Holy Roman Catholic Church as she could never poison her own children.
Sure, some “conservative” types will find it expedient to look the other way, as if the Synod’s shenanigans don’t pertain to their neck of the woods. Even so, they won’t get away with this for long. As the Preparatory Document plainly declared:
The Special Synod’s reflections transcend the strictly ecclesial-Amazonian sphere, because they focus on the universal Church, as well as on the future of the entire planet … Listening to indigenous peoples and to all the communities living in the Amazonia – as the first interlocutors of this Synod – is of vital importance for the universal Church.
So, there’s the good news, folks: The upcoming Synod cannot but open the eyes of at least some who were previously blind. Already there are signs that this is the case, and the circus has yet to formally begin.
We must pray for this intention, begging the grace of God for those who as yet cannot see.
Is it only me that views him as a perverse bizarro-Trump, where he says something or lets something leak that is so far radically left, that when he pretends to step in at the last minute and play “moderate” arbiter, he not only gets whatever it is he originally set out for, he appeases the “conservative” masses just enough that they plod along like good like lambs to the slaughter?
“Already, the conciliar church has laypersons and so-called permanent deacons presiding over so-called “Communion Services;” therefore, this obviously refers to the Mass. With this in mind, it seems that there is at least an open-mindedness among the Bergoglians to consider the idea of persons other than priests “celebrating the Eucharist.””
Or perhaps this is a formal recognition and admission that the conciliar “priests” aren’t true priests.
Good news indeed! Ad Multos Annos, Jorge. Keep that wrecking ball going.
Dear Mr. V. One hopes you are right but one also thinks that over 90% of those identifying as Catholic would be ready to go along with anything a Pope said – including so called women priests.
Sadly, most Catholics know less than nothing about Tradition and the Faith once delivered, but they do know that their “church” is out of step with the word and they want to be in step with the world.
Most catholics would agree their church is racist, sexist, and homophobic and that we have to show more love and respect for homosexuals and lesbians.
The Lil’ Licit Liturgy and the complete and utter failure in catechesis has resulted in low-information catholics who rely on emotion and who think that protestant service is just as worthy and valuable as a Catholic one
“Which Church are we talking about? Are we talking about the Catholic Church, or another church, a Counter church, a counterfeit of the Church? Now, I think sincerely, that we are talking about a counterfeit version of the Church, and not the Catholic Church. It does not teach any longer the Catholic faith. It teaches something else, it leads the Church to something else other than the Catholic Church. It is no longer the Catholic Church.They are sitting in the chairs of their predecessors, […] but they are not continuing in the line of their predecessors. They no longer have the same faith, nor the same doctrine, nor the same morality as their predecessors. So it is no longer possible. And principally, their great error is ecumenism. They teach an ecumenism which is contrary to the Catholic faith. […]The Church is occupied by this counter- church which we know well and that the Popes knew perfectly, and that the Popes have condemned throughout the centuries; for what will be soon four centuries, the Church did not stop condemning this counter-church which was born especially with protestantism, and which was developed with protestantism, and which is at the origin of all modern errors, which has destroyed all philosophy, and which has led us to all the errors we have known, that the Popes have condemned; liberalism, socialism, communism, modernism, sillonism. We are dying from them. The Popes did everything to condemn that, and now behold those who are in the chairs of those who condemned these errors are in agreement with this liberalism and ecumenism. Now we cannot accept that. And the more things become clear, the more we perceive that this program […] all these errors, were elaborated in the masonic lodges. “
-Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Conference in Econe, June 21, 1978
Alphonsus, Jr., thank you for this great quote of Abp. Lefebvre. The SSPX now speaks of this counter-church as the “official” church. I know for sure Abp. Lefebvre would adamantly disagree. Where is the SSPX going?
I wish I knew. Just when they should be speaking out more than ever, they’ve gone soft.
I’ve heard a similar sentiment regarding the “reign” of Ratzinger; any hint of ostensible orthodoxy was latched onto, simply because so many were tired of the long struggle and fight. Hence why many traditionalists celebrated Summorum Pontificum, even though it says the Novus Ordo and Tridentine are merely two forms of the same liturgical rite (which is an absurdity).
Thus goes the SSPX, perhaps? Who knows.
The SSPX started to change when it changed its view on the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration from doubtful/invalid to valid. Why? Because Ratzinger was the first “pope” to be consecrated in the New Rite. And if the New Rite was doubtful or invalid, then the Rat couldn’t be pope.
When did the SSPX ever cast doubt on consecrations of the New Rite?
The Second Coming will occur, according to the indication given by Our Lord, when few shall remain who adhere to the Catholic Faith. I have no confidence in the hope espoused by those who believe the Catholic Church on earth will suddenly revive attracting a greater number of believers than ever before. I suspect we shall remain a small remnant and without a pope at the Second Coming.
Pepe, before 2005.
Tom A, got a source?
pepe-my experience with the SSPX regarding its position (strongly) doubting the New Rites after Vat.2 goes back to the year 2000. I sensed a change around 2010.
You could always check the SSPX’s own website: https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations
Whether or not you think NO Ordinations are valid or not does not matter. There is evidence that the official position of the SSPX has changed over the years. As recent as 2016 Bp. Tissier again raised the subject (https://gloria.tv/reply/qRUQJjdjk7it4o7SbMFQBaxvu). Bp Tissier believes the new rites are invalid, but he is bucking the official party line.
I am afraid we have to conclude that we can no longer place any hope in the priests of the SSPX. Would they admit to any of the conclusions that Louie has made ? : Francis is not the Pope nor is he Catholic. Those who will be leading the Synod are not Catholic. The Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. The Novus Ordo Sect is not the Catholic Church.
It is easy to prove any of those points using Catholic doctrine. Why is it so hard to call a spade a spade?
Here are Archbishop Lefebrve’s words in 1976 regarding the New Rites/Sacraments:
“This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union – adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (…) The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976)
Note the date:
[*It was written by Fr. Pierre-Marie, OP, a member of the traditional Dominican monastery at Avrille, France. He is a regular contributor to their quarterly review, Sel de la Terre (Salt of the Earth), in which this article was originally published (No. 54., Autumn 2005, pp. 72-129).]
Get ready for the abomination of desolation mentioned in Daniel.
Nope. Peter the Roman and his helper the Great Monarch will come.
The fact that this particular article was originally published in 2005 does not lead to the conclusion that the SSPX held a different official position prior to that. In 1985, +Lefebvre published “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” in which he discussed the priesthood in some length. It appears that his actual conclusions about ordinations and elevation of bishops were more nuanced than you are keen to believe. He appears to have been dubious of ordinations performed with errant or incomplete formulas. I don’t think you will find any disagreement among clergy currently serving the SSPX.
I wouldn’t argue with the assertion that ABL had a more “nuanced” response to the new rites in 1985 (by that time the SSPX was already showing signs of softening up in general). Having said that, nowhere does ABL state that he believed them to be objectively and certainly valid. What he says about the New Rites in 1976 (up-thread) sounds very different than what he says in 1985. If he believed that the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration was certainly valid, it seems to me that he would have consecrated the four bishops in the New Rite in 1988. But he did not.
I think the timing of the writings linked above (Autumn 2005) is still significant regardless. It was a time when it mattered much more that the New Rite of Consecration be certainly valid because, if it were not, then Ratzinger was no pope when he was elected in the Spring of 2005. A Catholic man MUST be consecrated as Bishop Of Rome to be a valid pope.