Rorate Caeli

Pope's words indicate full synodality is on the way
Catholic communion: with the Bishop of Rome, with the Synod

To confirm in unity. Here I would like to reflect for a moment on the rite which we have carried out. The pallium is a symbol of communion with the Successor of Peter, “the lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and of communion” (Lumen Gentium, 18). And your presence today, dear brothers, is the sign that the Church’s communion does not mean uniformity. The Second Vatican Council, in speaking of the hierarchical structure of the Church, states that the Lord “established the apostles as college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from their number” (ibid., 19). Confirming in unity: the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the primacy. We must walk on this path of synodality, grow in harmony with the service of the primacy. And it continues, the Council: “this college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the people of God” (ibid., 22). In the Church, variety, which is itself a great treasure, is always grounded in the harmony of unity, like a great mosaic in which every small piece joins with others as part of God’s one great plan. And this should inspire us to work always to overcome every conflict which wounds the body of the Church. United in our differences: there is no other Catholic way to unite us. This is the Catholic spirit: unite in the differences. This is the way of Jesus! The pallium, while being a sign of communion with the Bishop of Rome, with the universal church, with the Synod of Bishops, also commits each of you to being a servant of communion.
Franciscus
June 29, 2013


[Translation according to the Italian final text, including words missing, at the time of posting, from the Vatican Radio translation - which was probably based on the prepared text, not the one actually pronounced.]

63 comments:

Peter Murphy said...

What kind of differences is he talking about when he says united in our differences?

Jon said...

What's he mean? Differences, by definition, do not unite. You might as well shout "diversity unites!" with Bill Clinton (who coined the asinine phrase).

It's liberal mantra, pure bs, and ultimately diabolical disorientation.

The Bones said...

I am hoping His Holiness was talking about the Orthodox, rather than the Call to Action brigade.

Liam Ronan said...

I am not the brightest penny but I haven't any idea what this means, much less portends.

RipK said...

“We must walk on the path of synodality, grow in harmony with the service of the primacy.” What does that supposed to mean? We must walk….(oh, don't we know where we are walking to... more liturgical demolition, more watered down practices... more plainness in the name of true Christianity, such exciting times).... Synodality…. A senate? More popes? … probably the G8 (the group of 8 cardinals that he appointed) will govern.... Maybe the people will start voting for their bishops. Fuzzy words. "With the service of the primacy"…. Primacy?... what primacy? he was showed us the exact opposite… maybe synodal primacy. A bishop with synods. A rebellious bishop-primate with a rebellious synod of bishops. All in dissent with the magisterium. I guess this is what he meant with the words "grow in harmony". I am curious to see what comes out of that. These are times of crisis in faith. The Church is sinking at an alarming rate. Someone must be in charge, in control. But in the post Vatican II church dissent is the norm. There is an open rebellion. Probably Bishop of Rome Bergoglio was expressing his own views and wishes. Or was it another off the cuff remark?.... blah blah blah there is so much of it with Bergoglio. The non renaissance prince is on a very big mission here…

Gerard Brady said...

I presume the Pontiff is referring to unity in the Faith. I wonder how many of those wearing the pallium actually hold the Catholic Faith these days?

Alan Aversa said...

@Peter Murphy: Differences in our specific vocations (cf. his "mosaic analogy")

Uncle Claibourne said...

None of this should be surprising; nor should anyone be surprised if the rumors about Piero Marini turn out to be true.

This man will not "learn how to be pope," as so many wishful thinkers believe. It was obvious from the very beginning, on the night he was elected, that he already has a well-developed, and FIXED, idea of what HE thinks it means to be pope. He expects the rest of us to do the "learning." What else would one expect from an intelligent, 76-year-old man, who has spent a lifetime thinking about these things?

Will the Holy Ghost prevent him from imposing outright heresy on the Church? Yes, of course, and I'm afraid that's the best we can hope for.

Will the Holy Ghost prevent him from diluting further the authority that is part of his office; from an even more radical imposition of a synodal/collegial form of governing the church, where he, the Bishop of Rome, "presides in charity," while authority over many areas devolve to the Bishops' Conferences? No, the Holy Ghost won't. I think this is exactly what Francis has in mind. And that being the case, it's easy to make a few practical observations on what may soon happen with the Liturgy.

Summorum will be modified, or simply ignored. The decision on allowing or not allowing the traditional Mass will return to the local bishop; or, more likely in my view, the liturgical committees of the Episcopal Conferences will become regional CDW's with greatly expanded powers, not only over the TLM, but most aspects of the Novus Order itself. The recent "translation wars," the arguments over "for many" vs. "for all," will simply be settled at the regional level. The "radical inculturation" of the Liturgy was the next step in the Bugnini playbook, and with Piero Marini at the helm of the CDW, that's exactly what's going to happen. Rome, by design, will have very little to say, but Piero will be quite busy working with his like-minded confreres in the regions to implement that decentralized/radical vision.

I would love to be wrong about this. I would prefer that the "give him time to learn to be pope!" folks are right. but I don't think they are. It's not hard to see where things are going; it wasn't hard to figure it out from the moment he stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter's. Unless there's some kind of Divine Intervention, we have several SEVERELY DIFFICULT years ahead of us.

"Fasten your seatbelts! It's going to be a bumpy night."

Rev. Anthony Cekada said...

As a sixties survivor, I would decode this statement (and his earlier remarks on how we should "synodality" from the Orthodox) as follows:

Francis would like to impose a revolution in governance from the top down via "synods."

The bishops' synod idea that was touted after Vatican II as a manifestation of the newly-discovered doctrine of collegiality ended up being pretty much of an empty letter in practice. The Roman Curia prepared the document drafts and set the agenda, and the bishops periodically came to Rome and rubber-stamped what had been prepared. The synods were bella figura (or, put more crudely, a dog-and-pony show) all the way.

The more radical modernists have consistently lamented this state of affairs as contrary to the collegiality that V2 really envisioned.

I think Francis now wants to give the bishops' synod (if not national "synods" — in effect bishops' conferences) real legislative power.

This would be consistent with his seeming program to diminish the "imperial papacy" — emphasize "Bishop of Rome," mock Renaissance princes, hint that the Curia is a stew of clerical ambition, spurn certain papal symbols, endlessly go on about "humility," etc.

There will be a lot of popular support for this sort of devolution (we are the People of God, aren't we?) and the press will push it relentlessly.

Francis reminds me of the Stalinist liberals Dearden and Bernadin, who encouraged all sorts of projects that undermined church authority (e.g., Call to Action) while ruthlessly suppressing any "conservative" dissent.

I think his "synodality" comments signal that everyone is in for a really wild ride.

Thus my personal "hermeneutic of synodality."

Mark of the Vineyard said...

I take it he refers to the diferences between the sui juris Churches.

Some Random Guy said...

Wonderful. Give more power and responsibility to groups of bishops who've already proven their incompetence.

JM said...

What a colossal waste of time, if not worse. The maters facing the Church are not of governance, they are of morals. Cardinals, bishops as policy-wonks... if the is Franciscan, I'll eat my hat.

Robbie said...

I have to agree with Father Cekada. When I heard Bergoglio refer to himself as merely the Bishop of Rome, the first thing that came to mind was the position of Chief Justice on the US Supreme Court. There the Chief Justice is merely first among equals. I think that's what Bergoglio is saying here. He sees himself as simply one of the Bishops, but the one Bishop who's in charge of keeping the trains running on time.

I must also agree with Uncle Claibourne. The title of the document, SP, will remain, but what's in it will change. The power to say the TLM will be returned to the Bishops. And the Bishops will be keenly aware Bergoglio doesn't care for the TLM so its use will become very limited and restricted.

With Bergoglio receiving loud praise from media and Marini in charge of the Mass and the Sacraments, we can expect full implementation of VCII without so much as a whisper from the tradition minded Cardinals, whomever they might be. And when the reforms of Bergoglio and Marini fail, they and the Synod will argue they just haven't gone far enough.

Dan Hunter said...

Let us trust our Holy Father.

After all he is the Pope and wants all men to be saved, and that can only happen if one is in the Catholic Church and dies in grace.

Uncle Claibourne said...

Fr. Cekada, I disagree with you on certain topics; but you've hit the nail squarely on the head on this one.

Robbie said...

Has anyone ever attempted to put together a list of the current Cardinals who would classify as traditionalists? I suppose Ranjith and Burke would fit the bill, but are there others? If Bergoglio is Bishop of Rome for a decade or so, he might well call VCIII so it would be nice to know who would try to hold back the modernist forces.

Gratias said...

Pray that Pope Francisco does not convene VC3.

Liberals used Papal authority to suppress the Latin Mass. The Synods of bishops will now do the same. Even a few good bishops could help keep the Faith so the Synods will serve to neutralize them. The Freemasons must be very proud of their Archbishop Bugnini.

Marie-Jacqueline said...

In Lutheranism, the synods are essentially different denominations. It seems as if synods with any real power could lead to complete fragmentation of the institutional church over a few decades.

poetcomic1 said...

Don't freak yourselves out. Our Holy Father is not the strong, silent type and talks a lot and more loosely than any Pope within memory. God forgive me, but I don't take a lot of it....seriously. The 'gravitas' is what is missing.

Angelo said...

Unity? What is Unity? Now the Holy Father has truly confused me. In light of the Unity he speaks of, how does it square with his opinion of Traditionalists. He did say we were "stubborn, hard headed and foolish, trying to tame the Holy Ghost". How can I look to the Holy Father for guidance and confirmation in the faith when his words make no sense to me? Our Lady of Fatima said that the Pope would have much to suffer and asked us to pray for the Pope. That is what we must do. In the days of St. Athanasius the Arian heresy even strongly influenced the Pope of that time. I hate the thought, but could Pope Francis be influenced by the heresy of modernism. He sadly does fit the mold.

Just another mad Catholic said...

Dear Lord

How are we supposed to make REAL progress both in the Church and in the world when you keep throwing us these curve-balls?

If we don't have Good Clergy then a Holy Laity becomes a real problem, it seems as if every time we manage to make some progress on something you keep knocking us back to square one

Please how are we supposed to love and trust in you when you keep treating us to the business end of a two by four?

Uncle Claibourne said...

poetcomic1, I don't think many of us are "freaking ourselves out." We are, simply, taking a cold, hard, realistic look at what The Bishop of Rome says and does, and attempting to draw reasonable conclusions.

We are told by Our Lord to be as innocent as doves, but wily as serpents. Unfortunately, in recognizing the reality of a given situation, the children of darkness are oftentimes far wiser than the children of light.

Marie-Jacqueline said...

I should add that in Lutheranism the synods came about as a coalescing of smaller bodies rather than the fragmentation of a larger one. Nevertheless, synodality seems as if it would create a risk of fragmentation.

Charles said...

Many of these comments jump to conclusions based on just a few words. Yes, I know words are important and the Pope's words are not chosen lightly. But let's all take a deep breath:

(1) Primacy refers to the Bishop of Rome; (2) There is no theological or ecclesiological problem with what he is saying since it is long established that the unity of Church teaching is preserved by the bishops acting together (in communion with the Pope (the primacy)); (3) Francis has strong and good ties with the Orthodox and it seems clear from his prior actions that there is the possibility of healing that rupture.

There are no differences on teachings of the Church within the Church because there can be no difference in truth, but there are differences in any things short of truth, particularly in language, customs, and actions. Clearly there are valid differences in liturgical rites (Dominican rite, Ambrosian, etc); the Orthodox liturgies would bring a wonderful infusion of mystery back into the Church.

New Catholic said...

Alberto Melloni et al. do not think this is small at all. He says today that this is the greatest news of the Pontificate at the moment - and it would seem he is right.

deprofundis said...

The principles at the heart of Religious Liberty led to this democratization (Religious Liberty based on dignity and not truth; based on the right's of man, not the Rights of God and the duties of man). Collegiality is the path to democratization through synods and conferences. This division is an innoculation against bold heroic action and a return to Tradition. It took a papacy, strong by virtue of the faith and loyalty of Catholics, to enact the ecumenical wreckovation. A weak papacy is needed to prevent a return.

deprofundis said...

The principles at the heart of Religious Liberty led to this democratization (Religious Liberty based on dignity and not truth; based on the right's of man, not the Rights of God and the duties of man). Collegiality is the path to democratization through synods and conferences. This division is an innoculation against bold heroic action and a return to Tradition. It took a papacy, strong by virtue of the faith and loyalty of Catholics, to enact the ecumenical wreckovation. A weak papacy is needed to prevent a return.

culbreath said...

Charles - if Pope Francis was merely referring to legitimate differences of "language, customs, and ... liturgical rites", then it hardly needed to be said. This has always been a feature of the Church, of her Catholicity, and doesn't need any new programs or policies or initiatives. So Pope Francis must mean something else by "differences" here.

Presbyter said...

Fiant dies eius pauci, et episcopatum eius alter accipiat..

Jacobi said...

We will have to get used to his somewhat oblique language. He is Jesuit and Argetinian after all, I have experienced both!

He means that the Pope, as successor of Peter, is the Head of the Church, and in communion with the bishops as successors of the Apostles, is charged with teaching the established and unchanging beliefs and doctrines of the Catholic Church.
The reference to “many members” refers to different liturgical traditions, which is perfectly OK, and to those who although in schism are doctrinally in communion with the Magisterium. Such schismatics are required to return to full communion with Rome.
Others such as heretics, an example being Protestants, are required to accept the Pope as head of the Church and to return to full communion. As for those in apostasy well............

Ad Quem Ibimus? said...

Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

The mantra of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

Free to do what you want.

We are all equal (faithful, heretic, infidel) no matter what.
Therefore;
We are all saved so let's enjoy the journey and partake in the meal of friendship.

Lord spare your people!

I heard from a dear friend inside the Secretary of State for the Holy See under HH Benedict XVI the bishops have voiced more and more that there has been a strong push towards the collegiality of the bishops. Lets see what will happen.

Alexander adulescens said...

"Francis has strong and good ties with the Orthodox and it seems clear from his prior actions that there is the possibility of healing that rupture."

Where does this come from? How do you know this? I would have thought it hard for an Argentinian bishop to have much contact with the Eastern Orthodox. I even used this in my mind to justify to myself his complete and utter lack of any liturgical sensibility and how dangerous his behavior has been to our relations with the Orthodox.

Washing womens' feet (one a pagan), his more "liberated style" of celebrating Mass (the very statement would cause revulsion in an Orthodox priest) and now with that thing at World Youth Day (the Orthodox youth will be laughing at us, the priests will be crossing themselves and shaking their heads, the monks will be saying "We told you so!"). If it is not ignorance, then what in God's Name is he doing?

I was at a Serbian monastery at the time of the conclave and was told that their Patriarch met him - but other than that it looks to me as if all serious contact and work with our unhappily separated brothers in the East has gone cold and come to a stand-still.

And either I have not been paying attention - or Metropolitan Hilarion has been very quiet lately.

- adulescens

Matthew said...

Robbie,

You are dreaming. There are no Traditionalist Cardinals. Traditionalists by definition eschew the Novus Ordo and the New Theology; Cardinals Burke & Ranjith embrace both. They may be so-called "conservatives" and look and sound more like Catholics than the Mahoneys and Martinis (Requiem aeternam) of the world, but such does not a Trad make.

Irenaeus of New York said...

I think Fr. Cekada gave a very accurate interpretation. The speech left me with a very similar impression.

Robbie said...

Matthew

I suppose it would have been better had I written Tradition oriented Cardinals rather than Traditionalist Cardinals.

Having said that, I think it's a bit (although not totally) unfair to say a traditionalist must eschew Novus Ordo. Cardinal Siri, after all, said the NO.

Would the FSSP qualify as trads? They accept VCII although they don't say the NO. At this point, I'd be happy with anyone who was "conservative".

Common Sense said...

If H.H. keeps his rumbling like this, by the time twelve months have passed, he'll be nothing short of embarrassment for the whatever is left of church. Under these conditions thanks be to God for SSPX even more so. Consistency is a valuble trait.

McCall1981 said...

@Common Sense,
I've found myself embarassed by a lot of his daily homilies already. With ALL thats going on in the world right now, we get homilies on "a Christian shouldnt gossip" etc. I mean, really? This is the leadership we get from THE POPE? Some have had some good points, but many are embarassingly bad.

Charles said...

These passages look far less curious when read in the context of the entire homily. The excerpt in the post is from the third point in Francis' reflection on the role of the Pope. Yes, I repeat, the homily is about the role of the Pope.

Here are the lines which proceed the three points: "I would like to offer three thoughts on the Petrine ministry, guided by the word “confirm”. What has the Bishop of Rome been called to confirm?"

It is also interesting to note that there appears to have been representation present from the Orthodox. Francis mentions them specifically early on in the homily.

I think the comments are over-reacting.

McCall1981 said...

@ Charles,
Youre right, I felt a lot better when I read the whole homily and learned the context. The context was also about the new archbishops, so speaking how he did about the Pope/Bishops relationships seems pretty appropriate to me.

Truth Will Out said...

Maybe it's just me, but from the very start, Pope Francis's homilies and off-the-cuff remarks have befuddled me. I stopped following the Masses broadcast from the Vatican right after Benedict XVI's resignation from and Francis's ascension to the papal throne because, first, of my very odd discomfort with this pope's manner and demeanour; and soon after, because of this confused, garbled mess of words that continue to emanate from our Holy Father. I appreciate the attempts at 'translation' posted above, but the Pope should really be very clear when speaking out on anything, and should not need any speech massagers or modifiers. What a contrast to his predecessor.

James Jordan said...

Synodality? Is that even a real word?

Edward More said...

@ Robbie:

"And when the reforms of Bergoglio and Marini fail, they and the Synod will argue they just haven't gone far enough."

lol... How true... The ol' same story: explaining away the empty pews by insisting on a lack of implementation of the same reforms that led to the crisis in the first place... Much like in the old days, when a patient lay dying, he was made to bleed by the unwitting doctor. And if the patient grew progressively more ill, the doctor ordered more of the same lethal treatment... So it is with the Church authorities of today: they behold the devastated vineyard of the Lord, and they loudly proclaim, "Vatican II has not been implemented fully yet, more vigorous implementation is required to fully reinvigorate the Church."

Alexander adulescens said...

"It is also interesting to note that there appears to have been representation present from the Orthodox."

Why is that interesting? They were there last year. The Orthodox send delegations regularly, particularly for feast days in honor of the holy apostle Peter. They were at Vatican II as well.

All that I said still stands. Your original remark that he has had good relations with the Orthodox and that there is a possibility in light of his behavior thus far of "healing" the "rupture" - is obscenely absurd. I say this as someone who just got back from the local Russian Orthodox church.

If Franciscus continues as he has begun - he will be deepening the divide and ultimately undoing all that Benedictus has done toward re-union. Re-union with our unhappily separated brothers in the East begins with the Liturgy and Tradition. That is why Metropolitan Hilarion said he was hoping for a traditionalist successor of Benedictus - and that is the last I have heard from him since the conclave.

- adulescens

Barbara said...

Dear Truth Will Out,

You are most definitely NOT ALONE in being perplexed and somewhat apprehensive...I am too..( and many here as we can see). But, as I have been told by good and holy priests (Yeah...they are still around...and more than we imagine ...although a minority still)...we stick with what the Holy Catholic Chucrh has always taught - we can only find objective truth in the Catholic Church - and ignore the abberrations and contradictions of perennial teaching which are common-place now practically everywhere in the institutional Church and that includes unofficial stuff coming from Rome.

We'll be alright...with all of heaven on our side...

Have a blessed Sunday everyone!

JabbaPapa said...

I had to investigate what "synodality" means in the context of Collegiality when the Pope first mentioned this idea, about two weeks ago I believe --- with the caveat that my understanding of Ecclesiology is limited, my impression is that it is a notion seeking to divest Collegiality of various false understandings, and especially of the false notion that Collegiality should be "democratic" in its nature.


Briefly, the notion of the College could be understood horizontally, as a gathering of equals ; whereas the notion of the Synod, in Catholicism anyway, is far more clearly vertical in nature ; whether this should be a local diocesan Synod gathered in communion with the Bishop, or the general Synod, gathered in communion with the Pope.

There are many subtleties in the related theology that I simply do not understand, but my impression is that the Pope's purpose is to undo the false democratisation that has been cleaved to by some of the national Bishops Conferences worldwide.

UnamSanctam said...

Jabba:

You take optimism beyond the realms of the even faintly possible.

As I noted in the Catholic Herald:

I truly am not trying to be confused, but I am very much confused by this.

From one side of his mouth he talks about unity (although I am unsure from his words what he means by 'unity') and from the other he talks about differences that do not cause disunity.

But differences ipso facto mean a lack of unity. What differences does he mean? Doctrinal, Sacramental, shoe size, favourite football team?

Who was the intended recipient for these words? The Archbishops, the Orthodox representative, or the Lutheran? Or all of them?

I, along with many others, suspect that what we have here is a new definition of unity whereby all differences are ignored. Just more Vatican II nonsense, whereby everything is shrouded in a verbal fog and nothing is made clear deliberately as they proceed with their revolution.


Benedict Carter


Long-Skirts said...

Benedict Carter said:

"I along with many others, suspect that what we have here is a new definition of unity whereby all differences are ignored"...

...except for the SSPX whose differences are - well - CATHOLIC!

HH also said:

"United in our differences: this is the way of Jesus!"

LET'S ALL
HANG AROUND
TOGETHER

United in our differences
The way of Jesus, this?
O, that's what Jesus taught us
When Judas gave the kiss.

JabbaPapa said...

We'll see, dear Ben -- but I DID take pains to point out that I don't fully understand the Ecclesiology here (it's rather complex), so that I'm perfectly unsure of my opinion here...

RipK said...

Going back to the source of collegiality and synodality: Vatican II and Paul VI… Today is the 50th anniversary of his coronation at St. Peter’s Square. He was the last pope to be crowned (quite ironic after all). For those who enjoy the pomp and majesty of the ritual of a bygone era, I have posted photos from the coronation here:
http://theratzingerforum.yuku.com/sreply/72055/Pope-Paul-VI
and about his tiara here:
http://theratzingerforum.yuku.com/sreply/72056/Pope-Paul-VI

Lepanto said...

I am sure that there is an intended message here but it is too obscure for me to grasp. I am heartened by some possible interpretations and frightened by others. I should have been happier if our famously frank Pope had been genuinely frank and unambiguous on this occasion. This is far too important a matter for him to fail to tell us EXACTLY what he thinks and intends.

Mike said...

LET'S ALL
HANG AROUND
TOGETHER

United in our differences
The way of Jesus, this?
O, that's what Jesus taught us
When Judas gave the kiss.


You're brilliant, Long-Skirts. You're just brilliant! I admire your gift of poesy enormously. God bless!

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Is it possible that this is merely a poor translation into English? Has the Vatican offered an official English translation? Or is this it?

Matthew said...

Robbie,

Words have meanings. What is the point of "Traditionalist" and "Traditionalism" if not to oppose the Novus Ordo and the errors (ambiguities if we take a wide swath) of Vatican II? Otherwise, one is a so-called "conservative."

Cardinal Burke is much, much better than virtually every other Cardinal - I agree. However, he has still extolled Mass versus populum, has never said anything contrary to the errors of VII, regularly said/has said the NO, and so forth. He is not Traditionalist-oriented, he is a neo-Catholic who likes the TLM.

JabbaPapa said...

Joseph D'Hippolito :


Is it possible that this is merely a poor translation into English?

No -- it's the very notion of "synodality" that is both very difficult and confusing in the context of Collegiality and in the context of the divergence between the wishes of the Council Fathers and what was implemented instead.

I've read a theological treatment of the question, and understood only about 10% of it. This is VERY heavy stuff, and it is unsurprising that we have difficulty making sense of it.

UnamSanctam said...

Are people going to use the "poor translation" get-out for EVERYTHING strange that this Pope says for his entire Pontificate?

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

JabbaPapa, perhaps you had difficulty with it because it might be absolute jibberish? Just because theologians are intelligent doesn't mean they know how to write clearly.

Besides, I understand that many academics deliberately write in such a way either to confuse their audience or hide their own incompetence.

Tabernacle of David said...

I thought this was supposed to be a traditional blog. Some of these comments are far from traditional (e.g. lamenting that the Holy Father referred to himself as "merely the Bishop of Rome"...give me a break. That is his primary title and the one that happens to make him successor to St. Peter).

I am beginning to think more and more that many of my fellow "trads" are a bunch of myopic people who don't understand either the Tradition or Catholicity.

The Church was de-Centralized in the first Millennium. It was also more unified then too. The pope was the court of last resort. Yes, he had the primacy and universal jurisdiction. But how this jurisdiction was exercised was in the context of a Church that was far less de-Centralized.

The break down of communication between East and West sure seemed like a loss of charity between brethren. It was the greatest tragedy of the Christian era.

If a person claims to be both a trad AND claims to hold to the same reality of the Roman Church AS experienced by the Roman martyrs invoked in the Roman Canon, HOW IN THE WORLD could they be against a de-Centralized Church.

Afraid of the modernist heretics? Or distrust Jesus Christ as Head?

I fear deep down the answer may be the latter for some. I pray not.

I'm with Pope Francis. He is emphasizing the Primacy in the same breath here. If folks are freaking out about Synodality based on the Holy Father's remarks above, they should know that they sound pretty silly to folks like me.

R. Sanchez said...

It seems like Francis is adopting the official motto of the United States for the Catholic Church.....E PLURIBUS UNUM: Out of Many...One.

JabbaPapa said...

Joseph D'Hippolito :


JabbaPapa, perhaps you had difficulty with it because it might be absolute [g]ibberish? Just because theologians are intelligent doesn't mean they know how to write clearly.

:-)

No, Joseph -- I've formally trained in literary analysis, so that I can tell the difference between gibberish, and the fact that I don't understand a text due to a lack of understanding of specialist vocabulary, of the underlying context, and my ignorance of the contents of the existing corpus of teaching, studies, and theory.

The text that I tried to read was well-written, I just lacked the wherewithal to make sense of it, due mainly to its involved complexity with a specialisation that is outside my personal experience.

I guess I'l let you judge the document for yourself, and perhaps someone else can make better sense out of it than I can :

http://www.eugeniocorecco.ch/scritti/canon%20law%20and%20communio/canon%20law%20and%20communio_ontology%20of%20synodality.html

(if so, I'd truly appreciate some informed explanations :-) )

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

Trust the Holy Spirit and pray for the Holy Father.

Mike said...

@Tabernacle of David

Deliberate no further, Rorate is indeed a traditionalist blog.

The either/or method you rely upon in a number of your points lacks requisite critical distinctions.

Speaking for myself, I'm not 'afraid' of the 'modernist heretics' - I actively scorn their programme. Furthermore, far from 'distrusting Jesus Christ as Head', in opposing Truth to error, one takes up one's cross in imitation of the Lord.

I'd like to give you a break, but I continue to lament that ANY Pope should ever refer to himself as 'merely' ANYTHING. To be satisfied with less a standard than that is to fail to understand fundamentally what a pope is.

I'm happy to 'sound pretty silly' to anybody, and I've not 'freaked out' lately, but I believe many Catholics' concerns about 'Synodality' arise not from the Holy Father's enigmatic remarks alone, but even more from the track record of Catholic bishops over the last sixty years. If the ravaged state of the episcopacy doesn't alarm you, you've got some studyin' to do..

Alexander adulescens said...

@ Tabernacle of David

Pax tibi frater

I once thought much like you. A return to things exactingly as they were in the fourth century Anno Domini to me seemed the answer.

Such a return to many things - such as the undivided Church in the East and West offering concerted worship to the Lord of angels with two tongues made holy by the wood of the Cross (Greek and Latin). The vox populi might make better bishops than the men recommended to Rome now. I pray orans as Tertullian and others describe it and Christian villas from as far in time and place from second century North Africa as fourth century Roman Britain depict it. I still am not a Thomist. Architecture. But in many things more - I have grown up out of this way of thinking.

The reason why the Church was less centralized during the time of the holy martyrs - a time would to God I had been born into; better to be born into the mouth of a lion than this broken, confused and confusing epoch - is because it was the time of the holy martyrs.

It was literally illegal to be a Christian. When the persecutions ease we see a converse centralization - when they intensify we see corresponding fragmentation (particularly as the pagan authorities aimed at bishops; a body does not move without a head). This is true at the local level universally and not only of Rome.

With the Milan Edict of Toleration under our Constantinus in three thirteen Anno Domini we see rapid centralization whose basic order is elementally the same as what we have today. The centralization is perhaps epitomized in three hundred and eighteen bishops from as far away as Syria is from Britain meeting in Bithynia for a Council.

Yes. There have been changes (cardinals for example; Rome did not always claim the right to make bishops for every see and ectera) - but elementally the same.

I recently heard a non-Christian secular historian saying that all Catholic churches preserve the same essential form the first legal Christian basilicas had under Constantine and which were actually modeled on Constantine's secular basilicas.

A quick aside - why did they not exist at the time of the holy martyrs? Should we behave as some of the foolish heretics today and meet in houses? This would follow from the same logic you have applied to the Roman Pontiff's exercise of jurisdiction. But the correct answer is No. They did not exist because you could not build large buildings to worship in for an illegal religion. Once we could - we did. And they do not look like the local Baptist sect's praise conventicle or whatever they call them.

Three rows. Fitting to honor the Most Holy Trinity. One in the middle and one on either side with a sanctuary with an apse where a statue of the emperor was. To be replaced by an altar by us.

I am yet to enter a Catholic church that does not correspond to this same basic structure. Yes, there are new things which are representative of the period it was constructed in. But elementally - the same. So too with administration.

The proof of the wisdom and Divine impetus behind the later changes to administration can clearly be seen by that when Rome was regularly referred to by the local ritual churches as the members to the head - discipline and orthodoxy was everywhere. With Vatican II and the new collegiality - disorder and heterodoxy or even manifest heresy everywhere. If the bishops of all the churches under heaven had just been obedient to Benedictus alone - things would have been back in order by now.

Decentralization is not a virtue.

Beati martyres urbis Romae - nos in mente habete in Paradisum et orate pro nobis.

Gloria et honor et imperium Patri et Filio et Spiritui Paraclito nunc et usque in aeternum.

Amen.

- adulescens

Tabernacle of David said...

@ Alexander adulescens:

Et cum spiritu tuo

I think we may be closer to one another than might first appear. Let us see.

First, remember that Constantine founded a Greek capitol at New Rome. It is not just the first three centuries that I refer to in my opinion, but the first millennium. The weakness of the East today and their national churches is stems from the rights claimed by the "Roman" emperors of Byzantium over the Church. Yet according to Unam Sanctam, our Blessed Lord put the sword of the Church over that of the State. This is the strength of "Old Rome" and the papacy ruling over the "barbarian" peoples of the West which the succeeding millennium experienced.

As per the multitude of prophecies of canonized saints and approved apparitions, I look forward to a Great Catholic Monarch who will "submit" to the Pope in every way. He will subdue the whole earth under the banner of the Cross and the Pope. In that day there will be unity politically. There will also be unity spiritually as the schismatic Churches of the East will obey the pope.

Now the question becomes: What is the nature of that unity? Were the early councils amiss to establish Five Patriarchies? The Churches of the East will certainly not start celebration of the Latin Rite. The glorious Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is to be held in high esteem both by the East and West. And the reason for such esteem is self evident.

There is a mutual charity that allows the other to be other. And there is something "other" about the East as compared to the West while remaining completely orthodox (else we commit sacrilege by not venerating as holy the orthopraxis of our fathers). Of course I am NOT speaking about allowing the "Orthodox" to remain in rebellion to their rightful visible head, the successor of St. Peter in Old Rome. That would be unthinkable and heterodox. False ecumenism is the enemy of the Immaculata.

No. If, according to Venerable Holzhauser, we are at the end of the Church of Sardis and the next "sixth" age of the Spirit (the Church of Philadelphia) is truly one attested to as having "brotherly love" or "fraternal charity", I expect there to be a proper example of submission and service. The East will obey and respect the successor of St. Peter. And I think the successor of St. Peter will allow the reverence of the East to exist as a free will action in truth while at the same time allowing them to govern their own pastoral affairs, at the same while not fearing to be both the court of last resort AND to put his foot down as head of the family to define dogma or whatever the Spirit wills for the good of the whole body.

Of course in such a case, the East will fully accept the dogma concerning Papal Infallibility as defined by the Dogmatic Council of the Vatican.

I think Kipling was wrong when he said "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet."

They shall meet. And they shall have mutual charity, though not mutual submission.

Over to you...