Wasn't +Strickland's main criticism that Francis was aiming to change the structure of the Church? If so--that is, if the Church were to become "Synodal"--then, from the point of view of those who accepted the change, it seems, the traditional concept of "schism" would no longer be applicable.
Wasn't +Strickland's main criticism that Francis was aiming to change the structure of the Church? If so--that is, if the Church were to become "Synodal"--then, from the point of view of those who accepted the change, it seems, the traditional concept of "schism" would no longer be applicable.
Or, to compare, suppose a Pope were to declare, "Henceforth, the Church is a democracy, and doctrine will be decided by majority vote. The first vote will be to confirm the validity of the process of voting." (Cp. Synod on Synodality) But does this new process of voting have its authority from the declaration, or from the vote? And if someone attacked this new process and said it had no authority, how would that be different from "voting" against it, which was allowed?
I'm concerned that these questions tie into the lack of clarity and transparency in applying canon law mentioned in the article. Is authority in the Church, now, "whatever Francis decides, except when he fails to thwart some initiative or movement he likes?" Then, sometimes it's Francis acting "as Pope" traditionally, with Vatican I authority, and sometimes it's just the flow (a.k.a. sensus fidelium or "the Spirit").
Wasn't +Strickland's main criticism that Francis was aiming to change the structure of the Church? If so--that is, if the Church were to become "Synodal"--then, from the point of view of those who accepted the change, it seems, the traditional concept of "schism" would no longer be applicable.
Or, to compare, suppose a Pope were to declare, "Henceforth, the Church is a democracy, and doctrine will be decided by majority vote. The first vote will be to confirm the validity of the process of voting." (Cp. Synod on Synodality) But does this new process of voting have its authority from the declaration, or from the vote? And if someone attacked this new process and said it had no authority, how would that be different from "voting" against it, which was allowed?
I'm concerned that these questions tie into the lack of clarity and transparency in applying canon law mentioned in the article. Is authority in the Church, now, "whatever Francis decides, except when he fails to thwart some initiative or movement he likes?" Then, sometimes it's Francis acting "as Pope" traditionally, with Vatican I authority, and sometimes it's just the flow (a.k.a. sensus fidelium or "the Spirit").
Great logical exercise! But does the Chair of Peter have to follow logic?