The Pope centralized the Church massively in Traditionis Custodes and susbequent diktats from the CDW, effectively transforming the diocesean Bishop into a representative on mission from the Pope.
This is entirely consistent with the view in Rome that the Pope can no longer rely on Bishops to carry out his vision for the future so he is now bringing everything to himself and he hopes his successors.
Mathematics also has to do with God and the real life of people. 2+2 equals 4 in math. Theologians must use the true results of math, not make up their own results. If 2+2 could equal 5 in theology, that would mean that in theology electrons can have more mass than protons and in theology the earth can be 7000 years old. That is just bad theology.
One of the big misconceptions about the Francis papacy is that it is rooted in Vatican II. The evidence does not bear this out. This article is but another example of this, but it is seen in issues big and small.
Recently the Holy Father reprimanded Sicilian priests for the amount of lace in their vestments (no seriously...this is apparently important to him...). His reason? It's 60 years since the liturgical reform. Of course Vatican II had absolutely nothing to say about this, even implicitly. In fact Sacrosanctum Concilium explicitly says "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them." Yet somehow Francis sees the reform kicked off by VII as requiring "updating" of liturgical vestments to meet some modern standard. He even admitted he hasn't been to Mass in Sicily - so how could he determine "the good of the Church genuinely and certainly" requires a change in local customer?
Maybe next he'll require written Vatican approval vestments with lace? No our Holy Father is not a man of Vatican II. He is a man of the so called spirit of Vatican II.
To be fair, Jesus had a similar go at the Pharisees who took pride in their accoutrements. Matt 23 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others, for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long.
We'd need to have some context to know if the Pope simply had a problem with lace.
ridiculous, requiring concelebration at Chrism Mass does not contradict the right guaranteed in Sacrosanctum concilium, since there is no right to celebrate individually on Holy Thursday:
"Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord's Supper."
even if there was a right to celebrate individually on Holy Thursday, requiring concelebration at the Chrism Mass does not stop the priest from doing so. it's a right *to* individual celebration, not a right *not to* concelebrate.
even if it did, still ridiculous to assert that that would somehow change the relationship between the bishop of Rome and the ecumenical councils, because it is already impermissible to appeal against the pope to a council. he has the supreme legislative authority, and the council only has it insofar as it acts in communion with him. as Vatican I said in Pastor aeternus: "And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff."
As the renovationists clearly lose their grip on the Church, they grasp more tightly. Jesus did not grasp but emptied himself.
Vatican approval for priests to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. Vatican approval for bishops to approve lay associations. Vatican disapproval of a bishop for making decisions about where to send seminarians. Vatican approval of Mass times in the Church bulletin. Papal disaprobation of lace surplices. We only can take so much of it seriously. Each statement carries less weight.
These responses seem a bit uncharitable. It might be better to let some comments go un-responded, if you can find the grace to assume the commenter's intentions are for the good of the Church. (This principle would particularly apply in the case of the commenter being, you know, an *ordained disciple of Christ*.)
I won't be part of any schism. But things are falling apart. You can comment "based pope" on every article but it won't change the reality. Things are falling apart and he talking about lace.
based on the definition of the word "schism", it seems that if every subsequent statement of Pope Francis carries less and less weight in your opinion, that might at some point constitute the refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether he authoritatively commands or teaches something that you cannot in conscience obey or believe
There seems to have been a very marked change in the tenor of this papacy. We started out with this rather de-Vatican-izing tendency, but now it seems like every announcement adds to the number of nitpicks requiring formal Vatican approval. It would be interesting to pinpoint when the turn happened.
Synodality for people the Pope likes, aggressive micromanaging for those he doesn’t. Francis is reducing the authority of the papacy to power games based on how much lace you wear. I cannot wait for this papacy to end.
Every day this papacy becomes less comprehensible to me--and more disheartening. Like everything else in the West, the Church seems to have become a bizarre combination of authoritarian (on strange issues) and relativist (on things that ought to be important, foundational issues). Pope "Mercy and Synodality" is also Pope "My Way or the Highway," and there's no telling which he's going to be, and when. The hierarchy around the world displays a stunning lack of backbone while continuing to promote and celebrate men of highly (and publicly) dubious morals in a way that must be so hard for faithful priests and bishops to deal with... it certainly is hard for us lay people.
If these decisions are truly rooted in the theological understanding of apostolic succession, would a lay member 'veto' of any such decision in a particular archdiocese be valid? Is the episcopal governing authority outlined specifically enough in Canon Law to create questions of the validity of such lay-person decisions should they come? If so, which is primary, the authority of a Bishop as the vicar of the apostles and so Christ, or the authority of the Pope in his juridical appointments? Honest question
The Pope centralized the Church massively in Traditionis Custodes and susbequent diktats from the CDW, effectively transforming the diocesean Bishop into a representative on mission from the Pope.
This is entirely consistent with the view in Rome that the Pope can no longer rely on Bishops to carry out his vision for the future so he is now bringing everything to himself and he hopes his successors.
"Questions still remain about how - or whether- those approaches can be reconciled."
Theology is not #Mathematics. 2 + 2 in #Theology can make 5. Because it has to do with #God and real #life of #people…
Mathematics also has to do with God and the real life of people. 2+2 equals 4 in math. Theologians must use the true results of math, not make up their own results. If 2+2 could equal 5 in theology, that would mean that in theology electrons can have more mass than protons and in theology the earth can be 7000 years old. That is just bad theology.
One of the big misconceptions about the Francis papacy is that it is rooted in Vatican II. The evidence does not bear this out. This article is but another example of this, but it is seen in issues big and small.
Recently the Holy Father reprimanded Sicilian priests for the amount of lace in their vestments (no seriously...this is apparently important to him...). His reason? It's 60 years since the liturgical reform. Of course Vatican II had absolutely nothing to say about this, even implicitly. In fact Sacrosanctum Concilium explicitly says "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them." Yet somehow Francis sees the reform kicked off by VII as requiring "updating" of liturgical vestments to meet some modern standard. He even admitted he hasn't been to Mass in Sicily - so how could he determine "the good of the Church genuinely and certainly" requires a change in local customer?
Maybe next he'll require written Vatican approval vestments with lace? No our Holy Father is not a man of Vatican II. He is a man of the so called spirit of Vatican II.
To be fair, Jesus had a similar go at the Pharisees who took pride in their accoutrements. Matt 23 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others, for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long.
We'd need to have some context to know if the Pope simply had a problem with lace.
ridiculous, requiring concelebration at Chrism Mass does not contradict the right guaranteed in Sacrosanctum concilium, since there is no right to celebrate individually on Holy Thursday:
"Nevertheless, each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually, though not at the same time in the same church as a concelebrated Mass, nor on Thursday of the Lord's Supper."
even if there was a right to celebrate individually on Holy Thursday, requiring concelebration at the Chrism Mass does not stop the priest from doing so. it's a right *to* individual celebration, not a right *not to* concelebrate.
even if it did, still ridiculous to assert that that would somehow change the relationship between the bishop of Rome and the ecumenical councils, because it is already impermissible to appeal against the pope to a council. he has the supreme legislative authority, and the council only has it insofar as it acts in communion with him. as Vatican I said in Pastor aeternus: "And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff."
based pope
As the renovationists clearly lose their grip on the Church, they grasp more tightly. Jesus did not grasp but emptied himself.
Vatican approval for priests to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. Vatican approval for bishops to approve lay associations. Vatican disapproval of a bishop for making decisions about where to send seminarians. Vatican approval of Mass times in the Church bulletin. Papal disaprobation of lace surplices. We only can take so much of it seriously. Each statement carries less weight.
oh yeah, it's schism time my trad brothers
It is indeed. As the statements of the pope carry less and less weight, the time of schism, both left and right, will soon be upon us.
not sure if your new bishop will be on the same side of the schism as you. he's been quite vocal about "standing with Pope Francis"
These responses seem a bit uncharitable. It might be better to let some comments go un-responded, if you can find the grace to assume the commenter's intentions are for the good of the Church. (This principle would particularly apply in the case of the commenter being, you know, an *ordained disciple of Christ*.)
I always assume my interlocutors think they are acting for the good of the Church. it is my intention to disabuse them of that notion
What is for the good of the Church?
I won't be part of any schism. But things are falling apart. You can comment "based pope" on every article but it won't change the reality. Things are falling apart and he talking about lace.
based on the definition of the word "schism", it seems that if every subsequent statement of Pope Francis carries less and less weight in your opinion, that might at some point constitute the refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether he authoritatively commands or teaches something that you cannot in conscience obey or believe
There seems to have been a very marked change in the tenor of this papacy. We started out with this rather de-Vatican-izing tendency, but now it seems like every announcement adds to the number of nitpicks requiring formal Vatican approval. It would be interesting to pinpoint when the turn happened.
Synodality for people the Pope likes, aggressive micromanaging for those he doesn’t. Francis is reducing the authority of the papacy to power games based on how much lace you wear. I cannot wait for this papacy to end.
"L'Église c'est moi" is the modus operandi of this papacy. That sort of autocracy never ends well. Après François, le déluge.
Every day this papacy becomes less comprehensible to me--and more disheartening. Like everything else in the West, the Church seems to have become a bizarre combination of authoritarian (on strange issues) and relativist (on things that ought to be important, foundational issues). Pope "Mercy and Synodality" is also Pope "My Way or the Highway," and there's no telling which he's going to be, and when. The hierarchy around the world displays a stunning lack of backbone while continuing to promote and celebrate men of highly (and publicly) dubious morals in a way that must be so hard for faithful priests and bishops to deal with... it certainly is hard for us lay people.
If these decisions are truly rooted in the theological understanding of apostolic succession, would a lay member 'veto' of any such decision in a particular archdiocese be valid? Is the episcopal governing authority outlined specifically enough in Canon Law to create questions of the validity of such lay-person decisions should they come? If so, which is primary, the authority of a Bishop as the vicar of the apostles and so Christ, or the authority of the Pope in his juridical appointments? Honest question