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.
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.
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.
I feel like I should have an opinion about what level these decisions should be made at, but I don't really. I mostly just want to be able to live the Faith as authentically as I can in my own life, my own family, my own parish and job and neighborhood. Whichever level of decision-making (papal or diocesan) will allow that is the one that instinctively favor.
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…
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.
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.
I feel like I should have an opinion about what level these decisions should be made at, but I don't really. I mostly just want to be able to live the Faith as authentically as I can in my own life, my own family, my own parish and job and neighborhood. Whichever level of decision-making (papal or diocesan) will allow that is the one that instinctively favor.
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