Pope Francis has proposed sweeping changes to Vatican and Catholic Church structure. Such changes had been under discussion prior to his election, but now have been put forward in a proposal document.

Here is a link to an article discussing these changes. It's about a 10 minute read, and anyone today commenting on the RCC should be aware of it, IMO.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/proposed-new-apostolic-constitution-reorders-vaticans-offices

Yes, interesting.

The great goal at this point is ecumenical union.
If you've read books like "Unity of the churches an actual Possibility" by Fries and Rahner, you will see the blue print.

It's spelled out

1. Focus on the basic truths all can agree upon, that are foundational to Christianity.

2. Don't argue or speak against dogmas held in different churches at this point -- This is left to a broader consensus in the future.

3. Partner churches can maintain their existing structures.
BUT in order to avoid controversy ""The solution to these problems will nevertheless require that all sides give up a certain number of old familiar customs, so as to make possible not just coexistence with tolerance and much indifference but a true unity."
I guess this is the "broader consensus" that gets rid of established but unique doctrines in the different denominations.

4. AND these partner churches are to acknowledge the right of the Petrine services of the Roman pope to be the guarantor of the unity.
He in turn, commits himself to respect their independence but he makes use of his high teaching authority for the good of the whole church.

And so it moves on from a seemingly open friendly union to a tightening of the noose ---

Step 5
Focuses on church leaders.
The election of bishops in partner churches needs not be done in strict accordance to Roman Catholic tradition -- but be more open.
Since most churches have some type of hierarchical structure that places "spiritual leadership" over the flock, it would not be difficult to blend them into Catholic system. But first Catholicism itself must "loosen up" some.

So here we see the "decentralization" idea.

The link, in the post above, simply shows the move to bring in the "unity of churches" is moving ahead.

Interesting what some Catholics themselves say about these new innovations:
Vatican’s former doctrine chief sounds alarm on Francis’ plans



Rather a potent analogy of the ecumenical program!

But the agenda is there -- what's happening is just one step to promote ecumenical union, but the steps all lead to right back to bringing all the churches back under the power Rome.

"God's Word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare." GC 581

How is that different to what SDA are doing as per "Ontario Conference Ministries Convention Ignites a ‘Discipleshift’ in over 800 Church Leaders" here?

From the page: "Overall, participants were excited, blessed, and ready to hit the ground running. Lula Bestman-Mombo, of Berea Seventh-day Adventist Church, attended a digital ministry seminar and reflected, 'I’ve gotten more ideas on ways that we can reach the community. Digital ministry is one thing that I will take back to the church and implement. I’m now motivated to go out and do more.'"

SDA are a strange set of people. Only they must set in place policies and organisation for evangelism; and when they do, they go about calling the Pope the Antichrist and the RCC the Beast ... but scream very loudly when anyone so much as touch their shoulder.

///

Thank-you for the link. I received that "Messenger" magazine just yesterday but had not read the article on conference leaders igniting "discipleshift" in over 800 church leaders.

Interesting question, too -- what is the difference? Indeed, what is the difference?
There is a difference that makes it seem different, but also strong similarities.

So first off -- I investigated the source of "discipleshift".
It's NOT an Adventist organization or policy at all. It's something Adventists have adopted from other prominent leaders in the Christian churches.

There's actually a book out:
"DiscipleShift: Five Steps That Help Your Church to Make Disciples"
by Jim Putman - founder and senior pastor of Real Life Ministries in Post Falls, Idaho, also the founding leader of the Relational Discipleship Network, and author of several other books on discipleship.
and co-author Bobby Harrington -the founder and CEO of discipleship.org

The ministry of "Real Life" is rated as being among the top leading church influences in America.
If you surf the internet you'll find various churches and groups holding seminars like the one described in the "Messenger" and their text book is Putman's book.

Now Christ commissioned His disciples to go out and make disciples for HIM. So on the surface it all sounds great and good. We are to make disciples who follow after Christ.

But --

Going to the website of "Real Life Ministries" we see them following the outline put forth in "Unity of the Churches an actual possibility" (written by Karl Rahner JS) They are definitely ecumenically minded.

Step one and two of Rahner's plan are fully implemented in the "Real Life" Ministries with the focus on the doctrines that all Christians hold in common (they term as salvation doctrines) while all other doctrines are classified as (non-salvation) and are set in the back ground as unimportant and are not to divide or disrupt the unity.

There's discussion on identifying "mature christians" who then are to be "spiritual parents" to spiritual babies, and children.

The concept of experienced Christians nurturing new Christians is definitely a good idea TO A POINT -- but is this leading into the next step for papal control of all churches by, making people subject to those deemed "mature" and building the channel by which to control?

So to answer your question-- what is the difference?
It seems Adventist leaders are jumping on the band wagon of this seemingly popular "discipleshift" movement, and, as so often they do, modifying it just enough so it still seems orthodox Adventism -- but is it?

I for one refuse to live my life looking for Jesuits under every bed and conspiracy theories behind every door.

The RCC is consistently distancing itself from the policies and behaviors characterized by (admitedly) the majority of its existence and moving toward a more relevant and honest church, while at time same time the SDA church is consistently approaching the policies and behaviors of 16th century Catholicism.

However, because this reality does not fit with certain outdated 18th century world views it is maligned and ignored and viewed as conspiracy.

If the Catholics say: "We're going to massacre and persecute all other denominations and religions." you all be like "prophecy fulfilled!" and "It's the time of the end!" and "We told you!"

But when they say "Let's put aside our differences and pray together and let the Holy Spirit lead us." you're all "Don't believe them! It's a conspiracy to suck us in!"

So you pick and choose and believe one statement and not the other, from the same entity.

Absolute hypocrisy. And completely un-Christian.

LOL
You don't have to look under any beds! The Jesuits are no longer hiding, they are right out in the open.
Just look at the Vatican chair -- an authentic Jesuit sits there as the first of his order to do so.

Karl Rahner, the author of "Unity of the Churches" is a Jesuit, it says so right on his book, nothing hiding there.

There's the chaplain of the American House of Representatives, Pat Conroy -- another authentic Jesuit.

You'll find them as administrators in America's important universities -- they aren't hiding -- in fact they are being presented as great spiritual and humanitarian leaders.
The whole paradigm of thought concerning them has reversed --
Now -- I wonder why?

Well -- their chief mission was to destroy Protestantism and bring people back under the pope's leadership.
They've almost accomplished their mission.
Didn't we hear "the protest is over" being proclaimed in evangelical meetings in the United States?


And as to identifying the papacy as the anti-christ of prophecy??
Pretty much every protestant reformer taught that.
It was what gave Protestantism the strength to pull out of the system.
Of course -- since the protestant protest is now considered as good as over -- it is no longer considered "Christian" to show this from prophecy.

Well, the way things are fulfilling right before our eyes, it won't be long till everyone who does not join the ecumenical union, setting aside their unique doctrines and accepting the Petrine services of the Roman pope as the guarantor of the unity with the "high teaching authority", will be declared as "unChristian".

The thing is this --
when religions unite under one system -- the next step is to enforce that system and all who can't accept it will be persecuted.

It's not a matter of choosing one statement and not the other, but seeing how it all works together, like a well planned agenda to the end which we were given warning, will happen.
Remember, even those who crucified Jesus, did so for the sake of unity in worship and their power over the people.


"God's Word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare." GC 581

Predictably, you missed the point entirely.
Actually, in your case it's the classic "bait and switch" tactic you're famous for.

So you asked what is the difference in what the Vatican is doing and what Adventist leaders are doing???

OK, but first let me make something else clear.
1. I do not agree with everything Adventist leaders are doing. They've made some concessions that trouble me.

2, I also believe that, at the grass roots, many Catholics are beautiful, caring Christian people.

However, there is still a huge difference in what the Vatican is doing and what the Adventist church is doing. This is not based merely on programs or even on their policies, but rather on their view of what the church is.

The two drastically different world views:

1. The Believer church>
The church is an element IN society, but is NOT society itself. The church consists of believers and of them alone. Society at large is not under the jurisdiction of the church. Belonging to the “church” is a matter of personal choice and commitment.

The other view is the Societies Church
2. In this view the church embraces all of society. Society is bound together by a common religious loyalty. And in order for society to be healthy and held together all the members of that society are to be committed.

The evangelistic approach:

1. In the BELIEVER's church – the church reaches out into society to teach and make more believers, and bring them into the church.

2. In the SOCIETIES Church view – there is a strong emphases on bringing all society together and bind them together in several noteworthy causes, and religious exercises and bring society into an element of unity. It's not so much about the people BELIEVING everything, but about getting them participating in a unified manner.


Church and State Issues
1. In the BELIEVERS church – church and state remain separate. Believers accept church’s teachings and practices voluntarily.

2. In the SOCIETIES church view – In order to get all society into the “church of Christ” they lobby for laws and political clout to make everyone in the whole society committed to the church.

Disfellowshipping

1. In any church of believers, they have always had the right to disfellowship members who no longer believe the teachings and practices which their church embraces. The disfellowshipped ones, are still honourable citizens of society with all the freedoms their society provide.

2 . In the societal church, once it gains its power, anyone convicted of rejecting what that church stands for, will be banish or murdered. They will cease to have privileges in the whole of society itself if they don’t co=operate.

So where does the Adventist church and the Vatican stand concerning these two views?

The Adventist Church was strongly based on the first premise. The church is a group of BELIEVERS. Church and State are to remain separate.
The church is comprised of believers and functions IN society.
To be disfellowshipped does not change ones status in society.

Catholic Vatican
They are on the Societal Church concept, having operated on that bases for 1260 years, and they see the church (stripped of contentious doctrines) as the way to bring society together again, with the pope as the guarantier of the unity, and the state as the enforcer, thus to reestablish once again a society held together by everyone accepting a common belief system.

Have you considered that it's not two things but one and the same thing?