I appreciate JD's comment on homework at the beginning. He and I clashed over this on the platform formerly known as Twitter at one point, but I think the position he stated today was quite reasonable (though I'm sure there would be disagreements over precise line-drawing).
The rest of the episode is obviously great as well!
ARNO is indeed a mess. Nonetheless, her people will love and feed Checchio well, and hope he'll love us back. The Simpsons reference was so bad, in a good way.
If +Checchio doesn't seem to be a +Pierre pick to you guys, and he doesn't strike me as a +Cupich pick, either, was +Checchio's metropolitan the primary force here? For the last ten years, it has never been apparent to me, the casual observer, that Cardinal Tobin flexed his muscle with appointments. Perhaps now is the time?
You guys mentioned on a previous podcast discussing possible curial appointments a potential article on +Tobin that digs into how he's taking on sensitive assignments from the Pope. I'm eager for that and holding you to it!
I appreciate your remarks about the relationship between bishops and the pope. I even heard a little shade thrown at the previous pontiff—and honestly, I get that. But the nature and role of the bishop has been a struggle for modern Catholicism since before Vatican II, during the council itself, and under every pope since.
I was recently listening to some Orthodox priests and teachers describing Apostolic succession in terms of the succession of Moses throughout the Old Covenant. A point they made about Catholicism is that, in their view, the pope is basically the only functional bishop because all other bishops can only exercise authority through what he delegates to them.
A true bishop in their eyes would be able to create their own liturgical form for their diocese in terms of celebrating the Eucharist—answering to no one. Not the pope, not fellow bishops. They would have complete authority over determining what Eucharistic prayers are used, composing their own if needed, authoring rubrics and flow of the liturgy in terms of the text, and basically having complete say over how their priests celebrate Mass. This includes deciding what latitude they do or don’t give to priests under them—which is essentially a monarchical bishop.
In modern Catholicism, we do teach that bishops are successors to the apostles in their own right and have authority. But if you how that works in reality, they can more or less only exercise that authority in ways the Bishop of Rome defines as permissible.
Is Catholicism ready for a truly monarchial bishop?
"A true bishop in their eyes would be able to create their own liturgical form for their diocese in terms of celebrating the Eucharist—answering to no one. Not the pope, not fellow bishops. They would have complete authority over determining what Eucharistic prayers are used, composing their own if needed, authoring rubrics and flow of the liturgy in terms of the text, and basically having complete say over how their priests celebrate Mass."
It's entirely possible I'm missing something here, but whenever I talk to Orthodox people about liturgical issues, one of their top arguments in favor of Orthodoxy vis-a-vis Catholicism is that freestyle creation of new liturgical forms will never, ever happen.
I think agree with your broader point though, which is that a bishop who was truly exercising his authority to its theoretical maximum in ways that were viewed as idiosyncratic would cause great consternation.
I say this with much love and respect for all that you guys do, but it is funny that two reporters working on Church matters have such bad Italian pronunciation. You've been pronouncing "amarevole" wrong for years. It's a-ma-RE-vo-le, not a-MO-re-VO-le. And the new guy's name is Iannone, not Ione. Many such cases, poor Mr. Mincione for instance. It's pretty easy to pull Italian videos up on Youtube to check the pronunciation.
Checchio, I'm assuming, has had his name Americanized!
I appreciate JD's comment on homework at the beginning. He and I clashed over this on the platform formerly known as Twitter at one point, but I think the position he stated today was quite reasonable (though I'm sure there would be disagreements over precise line-drawing).
The rest of the episode is obviously great as well!
Now here's a tip from Blanche you won't regret:
A stranger's just a friend you haven't met!
You … ha-ven’t … met!
STREETCAR!
ARNO is indeed a mess. Nonetheless, her people will love and feed Checchio well, and hope he'll love us back. The Simpsons reference was so bad, in a good way.
“New Ore-lee-ans” -JD Flynn
Great googly moogly.
Signed,
Your neighbor diocese
If +Checchio doesn't seem to be a +Pierre pick to you guys, and he doesn't strike me as a +Cupich pick, either, was +Checchio's metropolitan the primary force here? For the last ten years, it has never been apparent to me, the casual observer, that Cardinal Tobin flexed his muscle with appointments. Perhaps now is the time?
You guys mentioned on a previous podcast discussing possible curial appointments a potential article on +Tobin that digs into how he's taking on sensitive assignments from the Pope. I'm eager for that and holding you to it!
I appreciate your remarks about the relationship between bishops and the pope. I even heard a little shade thrown at the previous pontiff—and honestly, I get that. But the nature and role of the bishop has been a struggle for modern Catholicism since before Vatican II, during the council itself, and under every pope since.
I was recently listening to some Orthodox priests and teachers describing Apostolic succession in terms of the succession of Moses throughout the Old Covenant. A point they made about Catholicism is that, in their view, the pope is basically the only functional bishop because all other bishops can only exercise authority through what he delegates to them.
A true bishop in their eyes would be able to create their own liturgical form for their diocese in terms of celebrating the Eucharist—answering to no one. Not the pope, not fellow bishops. They would have complete authority over determining what Eucharistic prayers are used, composing their own if needed, authoring rubrics and flow of the liturgy in terms of the text, and basically having complete say over how their priests celebrate Mass. This includes deciding what latitude they do or don’t give to priests under them—which is essentially a monarchical bishop.
In modern Catholicism, we do teach that bishops are successors to the apostles in their own right and have authority. But if you how that works in reality, they can more or less only exercise that authority in ways the Bishop of Rome defines as permissible.
Is Catholicism ready for a truly monarchial bishop?
"A true bishop in their eyes would be able to create their own liturgical form for their diocese in terms of celebrating the Eucharist—answering to no one. Not the pope, not fellow bishops. They would have complete authority over determining what Eucharistic prayers are used, composing their own if needed, authoring rubrics and flow of the liturgy in terms of the text, and basically having complete say over how their priests celebrate Mass."
+Martin tried this. It did not go well.
There is a difference between having authority tondo something and having the wisdom to use authority well.
Also the changes + Martin wanted to make were well with in the framework of the GIRM. Not saying these changes wouldn’t be disruptive though.
It's entirely possible I'm missing something here, but whenever I talk to Orthodox people about liturgical issues, one of their top arguments in favor of Orthodoxy vis-a-vis Catholicism is that freestyle creation of new liturgical forms will never, ever happen.
I think agree with your broader point though, which is that a bishop who was truly exercising his authority to its theoretical maximum in ways that were viewed as idiosyncratic would cause great consternation.
I say this with much love and respect for all that you guys do, but it is funny that two reporters working on Church matters have such bad Italian pronunciation. You've been pronouncing "amarevole" wrong for years. It's a-ma-RE-vo-le, not a-MO-re-VO-le. And the new guy's name is Iannone, not Ione. Many such cases, poor Mr. Mincione for instance. It's pretty easy to pull Italian videos up on Youtube to check the pronunciation.
Checchio, I'm assuming, has had his name Americanized!
we is what we is.
Friend, he says “New Ore-lee-ans”. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.