Every time a bishop uses the term "synodal church" to justify reforms, it seems to be a reference to the birth of a new church.
What does it say about these bishops if they promote a church in preference to the one their Creator founded? It seems to leave two answers: either they do not believe in Christ or they believe they are superior to Him. If anyone can provide an alternative answer, please forgive my effrontery. Luan, I have made an edit, probably just before you 'liked' (I think the term 'agree' would be more dignified and accurate) my original post. I'm just saying this as a formality, but I don't think you'd disagree with my add-on.
It seems that they believe in the "civilization of love," in which Christ is obliged to accompany his children in their "weaknesses" without imposing the heavy burden of the commandments, even if this means giving up the preaching of the Church.
All well and good, but how are they going to 'oblige' Christ to do it (Him being God and all, being the obvious difficulty)?
To quote Malachi Martin: "they have lost their faith. It is as simple as that." A kind of humanism in place of Christ centered faith and worship has taken over.
I was studying the Second Council of Nicaea (787), the last council of the undivided church, and something that caught my attention was that Canon 6 says that provincial synods must be held annually. Perhaps liberals will take advantage of this specific canon to transform a pastoral requirement that was in force in the early church into a rule, but this time with the clear intention of carrying out reforms through a decentralization of power in the hands of local synods held annually. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum07.htm
