Posted on 02/09/2016 7:11:45 AM PST by marshmallow
NEWS ANALYSIS: An assessment of the positives and negatives of giving more power to bishops and their flocks
VATICAN CITY - Pope Francis' landmark address last October - in which he outlined his vision for a more collegial, decentralized and "listening" Church - was "one of the most powerful" of Francis' pontificate, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops, said last month.
So much so that the cardinal and the synod secretariat will be hosting a symposium Saturday through Tuesday to "build a discussion" on the topic, with doctrine as its "starting point," and the goal of encouraging scholars to look into the possibilities more closely.
But the nature of the Pope's speech - one that aims to pay more attention to the concerns of bishops and their faithful and offer them greater autonomy - has caused some concern. If inappropriately devised and executed, critics say, it could threaten unity and possibly even lead to schism. If handled well, it could foster unity and enhance bishops' authority, enabling them to more effectively lead their flocks in accordance with the magisterium.
Addressing the 50th anniversary of Paul VI's institution of the Synod of Bishops last October, the Holy Father set out to present his hopes for a synodal Church - a key tenet in his reform of Church governance.
He spoke of "journeying together" and of "mutual listening," in which "everyone has something to learn." He stressed the importance of listening to the sensus fidei - the sense of the faith, or faithful - in order to prevent a "rigid separation" between the Church and the Church's teaching. And he promoted a vision of a papacy and hierarchy as an "inverted pyramid," in which all are at the service of others, beginning with the successor of Peter. The.......
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
What is sad is that many Catholics miss the obvious. Yes, I am ultramontane in my views, but each bishop is supposed to control his diocese as his particular Church. The Church was made to be somewhat decentralized. Those Catholics who have the (appropriate) knee jerk reaction that this would lead to disaster are just admitting what we all know is true:
1) We have many heretics to deal with today and sadly many wear miters and Roman collars.
2) The real reason the Church cannot decentralize is not because there is something inherently wrong or unChristian or anti-traditional about decentralization but because we all know the heretics would have a field day without the centralized power of the Vatican to barely hold a lid on the cesspool of heresy from overflowing in many dioceses.
3) The real reason this is a problem is that the laity themselves have - in far too great numbers - embraced modernism and liberalism and no longer uphold the sensus fidei as they once did. If they did so, orthodox clergy would be bolstered to clean house in rapid fashion.
4) You don’t need a very centralized Church, if everybody in the Church is a) orthodox, b) humble before Church authority, and c) always open to sanctification and the need for charity. We have a centralized Church because far-too-often that is NOT what we have had.
5) The Eastern Orthodox have all sorts of issues, but heresy isn’t that much of an issue (yes, I am discounting any issue that separates Catholics and EOs in this instance). How can their Churches be so apparently decentralized and yet heresy is not such a big issue? Now, I think they are not as decentralized as they seem, but they are far more decentralized than the Catholic Church.
6) As the Church has become more centralized (to combat heresy) we have become less able on the ground level to combat heresy. That’s a natural consequence.
The usual numbnuts who hear only what THEY want to hear will start mis-spouting. Same ole, same ole.
What else is new?
That is the dictionary description of Protestantism.
uh....that was pretty much my point....
The tools that we have used are fully available to western Christians because they stem mostly from pre-schism canons:
1) Each “local church” (national church) is governed by a synod of bishops headed by a primate who is “first among equals”. This is why a patriarch is not equivalent to the pope.
2) According to ancient canons, the synod cannot act without the primate BUT the primate cannot act without the synod, either. This institutionalizes collegiality.
3) The voice of the laity can override the hierarchy. Rather than the centralized hierarchy keeping the laity in line, the laity (including monastics) rebels if the bishops are heretical or uncanonical.
In my own jurisdiction (OCA - Orthodox Church in America) there was a corruption scandal in the past decade. Laymen started a web site which documented the ongoing scandal in detail which forced the synod to deal with it.
In the Greek Archdiocese, intense lay pressure forced Constantinople to remove a “bad” Archbishop and appoint a new leader.
The real problem, my Roman Catholic friends, is how to get there from here. Please know that with all our differences, some of us are rooting for you out here.
Newberger
“Please know that with all our differences, some of us are rooting for you out here.”
And I root for the OCA to get the recognition so far denied it by the Byzantines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_response_to_Orthodox_Church_in_America_autocephaly
One day. One day.
I am still working on your question
this is all I have right now
this priest was a Traditionalist ... one man’s opinion
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/conciliar.htm
In practice, it is fair to say the US Bishops are deciding themselves who their new bishops will be.
http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/appointing-bishops.cfm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.