Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[TrentCath]

CCEO 45

1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office, not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Forgive me but I fail to see how this supports the idea that it is not as Bishop of Rome that the pope exercises his supreme, plenary and universal jurisdiction? Rather it seems to strengthen my argument.

 

[TrentCath]

Please re-read this thread properly, if you did so you’d see that that is one of many points of contention.

 

[TrentCath]

Ditto what I said above.

 

[Cecilianus]

You misunderstand it is has nothing to do with the Papacy secure, insecure or otherwise. Rather it is because the ‘barque of the church has been commited to st peter and it is for him to guide it avoding the shipwreck of souls’. The fact is like it or not the Popes ‘Supreme, plenary and universal jurisdiction’ is De Fide, I therefore have no need to wonder whether or not the East will fall into heresy if it elects its own bishops, promulugates its own canon law and liturgical norms, rather I merely believe in the promise of Christ that ‘And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ Therefore I simply believe.

If we fall into heresy, the Pope will correct us as he always has and always will. Until then, the assumption that our natural state is to fall into heresy is exactly what I’m objecting to, and what I find insulting. A little trust would go a long way.
Other than that, I think I only remain in disagreement with you about the following points: your contention that we (the Orthodox, both in communion with Rome and not) are in fact heretics (a misunderstanding of Orthodoxy on your part), your contention that the terms “Catholic Church” and “Roman Catholic Church” are strictly coterminous and your denial of the existence of the particular Church of Rome, your insistence that all the councils under question have universal significance rather than either dealing with local disciplinary issues in the West or condemning heresies that were never present in the East and therefore more or less irrelevant to daily life there, and your insistence that the term “Ecumenical Council” and not just the acceptance of its teachings be accepted in the East.

It’s been a long discussion and I’m not sure if anyone made clear the motivation for keeping only seven Ecumenical Councils. Besides the natural psychological symbolism of the number “seven” (it denotes completion, e.g. the seven days of the week, etc.), last Sunday was the Sunday of the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (or “first six” as the liberalized new translation gives it, keeping the possibility open for more, rejecting both the Council in Trullo and the anti-Photian 4th Council of Constantinople, but losing the traditional meaning and numerical symbolism). And the seventh ecumenical council was the “Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy” - which in the story of the struggle of the Orthodox Faith through the various heresies that challenged it is the completion, the triumphant conclusion, of the story. Further developments of course did happen, but only as the deepening or conclusion of the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy (the Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas, celebrating the triumph at the council of Constantinople-Blachernae in 1351 of the doctrine of divinization and hesychasm over the nominalist proto-Lutheran imputed justification of Barlaam of Calabria, is celebrated the very next Sunday as the completion of the Sunday of Holy Orthodoxy, and other dogmatic definitions like those made in the West are really just wrap-ups in the story for us, since they don’t relate to any major struggle in the East). We have liturgical reasons for upholding seven ecumenical councils and no more, and this makes sense in the East but not in the West - and I don’t think this is something a Roman Catholic would have any reason to dispute.

I’ll grant you that the teachings of your councils are de fide - it doesn’t mean the words chosen to express them don’t reflect a particular theological culture, since they are expressed in the Latin language which has different overtones than words in the Greek language. (You can’t avoid this inculturation, and you shouldn’t want to try.) Again, I have no wish to dispute them, only to preserve the orthodox theological expression of my own church without making any artificial liturgical changes inorganic to our tradition and culture. (We changed our liturgy pretty much every time a new doctrine was defined, in order to incarnate that teaching in our Liturgy and force the heretics to leave - hence the addition of the iconostasis, the many prayers to the Theotokos put in our Liturgy, the Symbol of Constantinople added after 381, etc. Catholics also add a prayer before receiving Communion, namely “O Lord, I also believe and profess that this which I am about to receive is truly your most precious Body, and your Life-giving Blood, which I pray, make me worthy to receive, for the remission of all my sins, and for life everlasting, Amen. O God, be merciful to me a sinner. O God, cleanse me of my sins, and have mercy on me. O Lord, forgive me, for I have sinned without number.” It’s technically a Latinization, one which was eventually printed in the Liturgy because nobody could be stopped from saying it, but not part of the original Liturgy, though this is one Latinization I’m not complaining about. (We live surrounded by Protestants, so it makes sense for us to proclaim our faith in the True Presence.) It reflects our own understanding of the Eucharist, without the philosophical baggage of “transubstantiation” (no “species” mentioned there!).

 

[Cecilianus]

You misunderstand it is has nothing to do with the Papacy secure, insecure or otherwise. Rather it is because the ‘barque of the church has been commited to st peter and it is for him to guide it avoding the shipwreck of souls’. The fact is like it or not the Popes ‘Supreme, plenary and universal jurisdiction’ is De Fide, I therefore have no need to wonder whether or not the East will fall into heresy if it elects its own bishops, promulugates its own canon law and liturgical norms, rather I merely believe in the promise of Christ that ‘And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ Therefore I simply believe.

Unlike the Western bishops especially after Vatican II, the Orthodox have never gone out of control or crazy, or needed sharp monitering to stay Orthodox. Go to an Armenian Apostolic Liturgy some time and you’ll find that after 1700 years of separation and more or less complete independence from us, most of the time in isolation (with exceptions like during the Crusades, when ties to the West were temporarily re-strengthened), the faith is pretty much identical. They anathematize all the Christological heresies, including Eutychianism if I recall correctly (only been to their Liturgy once, and it was in classical Armenian which I don’t understand), after the Symbol of Nicea, urge the need for frequent private confession and absolution of sins in the missallette before the priest gives public sacramental absolution to all who are about to receive Communion, and in every other way expresses the Faith with perfect Orthodoxy. They haven’t ever had their bishops appointed or their canon law given by Rome.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Ditto what I said above.

“Ditto” is hardly a Council of Trent word, you know . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Unlike the Western bishops especially after Vatican II, the Orthodox have never gone out of control or crazy, or needed sharp monitering to stay Orthodox. Go to an Armenian Apostolic Liturgy some time and you’ll find that after 1700 years of separation and more or less complete independence from us, most of the time in isolation (with exceptions like during the Crusades, when ties to the West were temporarily re-strengthened), the faith is pretty much identical. They anathematize all the Christological heresies, including Eutychianism if I recall correctly (only been to their Liturgy once, and it was in classical Armenian which I don’t understand), after the Symbol of Nicea, urge the need for frequent private confession and absolution of sins in the missallette before the priest gives public sacramental absolution to all who are about to receive Communion, and in every other way expresses the Faith with perfect Orthodoxy. They haven’t ever had their bishops appointed or their canon law given by Rome.

Excellent point sir!

One could make the observation that the papal dogmas were defined precisely because the papacy was under attack.

The Roman Pontiff is really there to protect and defend the Faith of the ancient Church, not to try to be seen to be “inventing” dogmas or otherwise trying to “improve” on it.

And his defense would usually only be called upon if there would be an open threat to it, to the unity of the Church universal or to a Local, Particular Church (which matter would be brought to the pope’s attention by that Church’s leadership).

The Roman Catholic world has returned, I believe, to a much more collegial governance where episcopal conferences do indeed manage the internal affairs of, say, the Church in the U.S. and the like.

Was it not Bl John H. Newman who defended Vatican I’s papalist statements with the proviso that he believed future Councils would move to balance out papal power via collegiality?

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

“Ditto” is hardly a Council of Trent word, you know . . .

Alex

you caught me out I’m getting lazy

 

[TrentCath]

If we fall into heresy, the Pope will correct us as he always has and always will. Until then, the assumption that our natural state is to fall into heresy is exactly what I’m objecting to, and what I find insulting. A little trust would go a long way. The natural state of any church in schism is to fall into heresy as St Jerome says '“Between heresy and schism there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church.” St. Jerome, (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10’
Other than that, I think I only remain in disagreement with you about the following points: your contention that we (the Orthodox, both in communion with Rome and not) are in fact heretics (a misunderstanding of Orthodoxy on your part), **If you look at both the 1848 and 1895 encylicals of the Eastern Patriarchs you can hardly deny they contain patent and self-evident heresy as well as obstinate refusal to submit to the legitmate authority of Rome. The refusal of most Orthodox to submit to the council of Florence and the repudiation at what was agreed at the council by almost all Orthodox Theologians demonstrates much the same. I contend that there is no such thing as Orthodox in communion with Rome, it is a delusion. There can be such as Catholics that follow the Eastern Rites and traditions as well as the traditions of the universal church but as some parts of Orthodox Theology are fundamentally incompatible with Catholic Theology the term ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’ is inappropriate and misleading. ** your contention that the terms “Catholic Church” and “Roman Catholic Church” are strictly coterminous and your denial of the existence of the particular Church of Rome, your insistence that all the councils under question have universal significance rather than either dealing with local disciplinary issues in the West or condemning heresies that were never present in the East and therefore more or less irrelevant to daily life there, Some were, those that were not Dogmatic. Those that were Dogmatic proclaimed Truth and Truth being by its very nature universal affects the whole Church and your insistence that the term “Ecumenical Council” and not just the acceptance of its teachings be accepted in the East.

It’s been a long discussion and I’m not sure if anyone made clear the motivation for keeping only seven Ecumenical Councils. Besides the natural psychological symbolism of the number “seven” (it denotes completion, e.g. the seven days of the week, etc.), last Sunday was the Sunday of the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils And the seventh ecumenical council was the “Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy” - which in the story of the struggle of the Orthodox Faith through the various heresies that challenged it is the completion, the triumphant conclusion, of the story. Further developments of course did happen, but only as the deepening or conclusion of the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy (the Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas, celebrating the triumph at the council of Constantinople-Blachernae in 1351 of the doctrine of divinization and hesychasm over the nominalist proto-Lutheran imputed justification of Barlaam of Calabria, **I’ll make no comment about the fact that that doctrine has traditionally been rejected by the Catholic Church and that Barlaam was made a bishop.**is celebrated the very next Sunday as the completion of the Sunday of Holy Orthodoxy, and other dogmatic definitions like those made in the West are really just wrap-ups in the story for us, since they don’t relate to any major struggle in the East). We have liturgical reasons for upholding seven ecumenical councils and no more, and this makes sense in the East but not in the West - and I don’t think this is something a Roman Catholic would have any reason to dispute. **Thats interesting and somewhat edifying but I would still insist that the councils were ecumenical. A) Because they are binding on the whole church and B) Because the universality and catholicity of the church cannot be affected by the departing into schism (and in the opinion of many from thence into heresy) so the mere fact that eastern orthodox did not take part in the councils does not make them any less ecumenical. **

I’ll grant you that the teachings of your councils are de fide - it doesn’t mean the words chosen to express them don’t reflect a particular theological culture, since they are expressed in the Latin language which has different overtones than words in the Greek language. (You can’t avoid this inculturation, and you shouldn’t want to try.) **I may agree with this but I view it as problematic because many use this as an excuse to ignore clear De Fide teachings because its ‘not our tradition’ or ‘thats latinization’**Again, I have no wish to dispute them, only to preserve the orthodox theological expression of my own church without making any artificial liturgical changes inorganic to our tradition and culture. (We changed our liturgy pretty much every time a new doctrine was defined, in order to incarnate that teaching in our Liturgy and force the heretics to leave - hence the addition of the iconostasis, the many prayers to the Theotokos put in our Liturgy, the Symbol of Constantinople added after 381, etc. . (We live surrounded by Protestants, so it makes sense for us to proclaim our faith in the True Presence.) It reflects our own understanding of the Eucharist, without the philosophical baggage of “transubstantiation” (no “species” mentioned there!).I’ll make no comment on the Council of Trents De Fide declaration regarding Transubstantiation…

 

[TrentCath]

Unlike the Western bishops especially after Vatican II, the Orthodox have never gone out of control or crazy, or needed sharp monitering to stay Orthodox. Has no one read the several rather nice responses of the Orthodox to the council of florence? Or the encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 and 1895? They all contain explicit heresy and implicit for that matter. It’s dishonest to suggest that the East is entirely ‘Orthodox’ and has not fallen into heresy, why then does the Orthodox church deny papal infallibility, supremacy, indulgences, the Churches understanding of Original Sin and don’t even have the correct canon of scripture? Happily I don’t need to know why, the mere fact they do is enough to substantitate the claim of Material (if possibly not formal) Heresy. The Fourth Lateran Council spoke of the matter when it said ‘4. On the pride of the Greeks towards the Latins
Although we would wish to cherish and honour the Greeks who in our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see, by preserving their customs and rites as much as we can in the Lord, nevertheless we neither want nor ought to defer to them in matters which bring danger to souls and detract from the church’s honour. For, after the Greek church together with certain associates and supporters withdrew from the obedience of the apostolic see, the Greeks began to detest the Latins so much that, among other wicked things which they committed out of contempt for them, when Latin priests celebrated on their altars they would not offer sacrifice on them until they had washed them, as if the altars had been defiled thereby. The Greeks even had the temerity to rebaptize those baptized by the Latins; and some, as we are told, still do not fear to do this. Wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God’s church, we strictly order, on the advice of this sacred council, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd. If anyone however does dare to do such a thing, let him be struck with the sword of excommunication and be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and benefice.’ Go to an Armenian Apostolic Liturgy some time and you’ll find that after 1700 years of separation and more or less complete independence from us, most of the time in isolation (with exceptions like during the Crusades, when ties to the West were temporarily re-strengthened), the faith is pretty much identical. I’d be very surprised if they taught Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, the definition of Original Sin according to the church, indulgences and so on. Therefore even if it could be shown they hadn’t fallen into heresy, they don’t possess the fullness of the truth They anathematize all the Christological heresies, including Eutychianism if I recall correctly (only been to their Liturgy once, and it was in classical Armenian which I don’t understand), after the Symbol of Nicea, urge the need for frequent private confession and absolution of sins in the missallette before the priest gives public sacramental absolution to all who are about to receive Communion, and in every other way expresses the Faith with perfect Orthodoxy. They haven’t ever had their bishops appointed or their canon law given by Rome.

 

[TrentCath]

Excellent point sir!

One could make the observation that the papal dogmas were defined precisely because the papacy was under attack. And?

The Roman Pontiff is really there to protect and defend the Faith of the ancient Church, not to try to be seen to be “inventing” dogmas or otherwise trying to “improve” on it. The pope as ‘The head of the Church Militant’ and the succesor to Peter is there to lead, guide and rule over the entire church, he may do this both by protecting it from heresy and with the help of the Holy Spirit leading it to a fullness of the truth by explicitly defining already implicit doctrines

And his defense would usually only be called upon if there would be an open threat to it, to the unity of the Church universal or to a Local, Particular Church (which matter would be brought to the pope’s attention by that Church’s leadership). I believe we’ve moved on, and Catholic dogma not being stuck in the past but being in the ‘development of doctrine’ accepts this and condemns those that would wish a return to how things were done in the days of the apostles or the Ancient Church

The Roman Catholic world has returned, I believe, to a much more collegial governance where episcopal conferences do indeed manage the internal affairs of, say, the Church in the U.S. and the like. And who may I ask appoint’s the bishops? The pope. When the system was initially introduced it was a total disaster and in some respects looking at some bishops still is

Was it not Bl John H. Newman who defended Vatican I’s papalist statements with the proviso that he believed future Councils would move to balance out papal power via collegiality? Maybe he did maybe he didn’t sadly whilst Vatican I promulugated De Fide Dogma’s he being a mere cardinal and even possibly a saint could not

Alex

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

the idea that because the East does not use Latin terminology it denies that terminology’s “pith and substance” is wrong and born willfull unfamiliarity with the Eastern Christian and liturgical tradition.

It’s also partially the fault of certain Orthodox apologists, too. I mean the ones who issue blanket statements like, “We reject the idea of purgatory” - then get all irritable when one suggests that there is no incompatibility between the “pith and substance” of the positions of West and East…

You believe in the teachings of the Council of Trent? Very well, I applaud you; but we are not the heretics that Trent convened to condemn and so please do not treat us as if we were. Take our word for it that we accept the fullness of the Catholic faith and quit treating us like heretics.

I’m really glad I saw this reply; I think that’s an excellent way of putting it.

C’mon - you seriously believe that the Pope cannot let the Eastern Churches elect their own bishops and promulgate their own canon law and liturgical norms as he did during the 1st millennium without committing heresy? That’s extreme to the point of ridiculous.

This Latin agrees with you, Cecilianus. Even the passages in, say, Vatican I that most explicitly promote and teach papal supremacy do not tell the pope precisely how or when to wield his universal authority.

The first millennium standard is indeed the way to go. I sympathize with my eastern Catholic brethren who feel frustrated at the ways in which Rome does not, at present, quite live up to that standard.

Unlike the Western bishops especially after Vatican II, the Orthodox have never gone out of control or crazy, or needed sharp monitering to stay Orthodox. Go to an Armenian Apostolic Liturgy some time and you’ll find that after 1700 years of separation and more or less complete independence from us, most of the time in isolation (with exceptions like during the Crusades, when ties to the West were temporarily re-strengthened), the faith is pretty much identical. They anathematize all the Christological heresies, including Eutychianism if I recall correctly (only been to their Liturgy once, and it was in classical Armenian which I don’t understand), after the Symbol of Nicea, urge the need for frequent private confession and absolution of sins in the missallette before the priest gives public sacramental absolution to all who are about to receive Communion, and in every other way expresses the Faith with perfect Orthodoxy. They haven’t ever had their bishops appointed or their canon law given by Rome.

This is the biggest reason I agree that the East is trustworthy and doesn’t need papal “supervision” on a day-to-day basis. The example of history clearly shows that the Orthodox have preserved their orthodox faith without the benefit of papal oversight. I see no reason today should be different.

Excellent point sir!

One could make the observation that the papal dogmas were defined precisely because the papacy was under attack.

The Roman Pontiff is really there to protect and defend the Faith of the ancient Church, not to try to be seen to be “inventing” dogmas or otherwise trying to “improve” on it.

And his defense would usually only be called upon if there would be an open threat to it, to the unity of the Church universal or to a Local, Particular Church (which matter would be brought to the pope’s attention by that Church’s leadership).

The Roman Catholic world has returned, I believe, to a much more collegial governance where episcopal conferences do indeed manage the internal affairs of, say, the Church in the U.S. and the like.

I agree completely!

And I personally like the implications of the term “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”

 

[Vico]

Forgive me but I fail to see how this supports the idea that it is not as Bishop of Rome that the pope exercises his supreme, plenary and universal jurisdiction? Rather it seems to strengthen my argument.

By virtue of his office, not because he is a bishop.

He is Bishop of Rome (the diocese), metropolitan (of the Roman province), primate of Italy (Italian bishops), and first of the patriarchs. The universal office is the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[Cecilianus]

The natural state of any church in schism is to fall into heresy as St Jerome says ‘“Between heresy and schism there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church.” St. Jerome, (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10’

Which proves my point. Get rid of the schism and you get rid of the “heresy” - that is, the Orthodox attempts to fluff up the differences between them and Rome. There’s no serious dogmatic difference between Rome and Moscow; just trumped-up exaggerations.

There’s absolutely no reason to suspect those Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome of heresy, because WE’RE NOT IN SCHISM!!! We’ve been in communion with Rome since the Union of Uzhhorod in 1646. How many hundreds of years will it take before you accept that we’re actually Catholic?

 

[Cecilianus]

I’ll make no comment about the fact that that doctrine has traditionally been rejected by the Catholic Church and that Barlaam was made a bishop.

I spent three years looking for a single Vatican statement about the matter and could find absolutely nothing, aside from unbuttressed Orthodox claims that the doctrine was rejected by Rome, and laughably unprofessional mispresentations by New Advent and by older-school hatemongers like Martin Jugie. Can you please provide me with a statement by Rome supporting your claim? (Your claim that either hesychasm or divinization has been rejected by Rome - I know that the heretic Barlaam [condemned as a heretic in our Synodikon of Holy Orthodoxy chanted in church on the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy] was made a bishop in Renaissance Italy.)

You’d have a difficult time claiming that the Catholic Church rejects divinization, which is the whole point and crux of the hesychast controversy. Our acceptance of divinization, based on 1 Peter 3:15, is what separates us from the Lutherans with their imputed justification. “By the mingling of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity,” as your own Liturgy states it.

 

[Cecilianus]

I contend that there is no such thing as Orthodox in communion with Rome, it is a delusion. There can be such as Catholics that follow the Eastern Rites and traditions as well as the traditions of the universal church but as some parts of Orthodox Theology are fundamentally incompatible with Catholic Theology the term ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’ is inappropriate and misleading.

Well, in our Liturgy which we have prayed since the fourth century, we pray “for all Orthodox Christians”, and at Vespers we pray for God to “strengthen the Orthodox Faith”, and all our fathers wrote books like “De Fide Orthodoxa”. The term Orthodox is our liturgical identity. You have it in your Tridentine Mass too, but you never identified with it as strongly because it is said silently rather than sung in a loud voice during the Great Entrance when the priest is amidst the people.

Our Faith is the Orthodox Faith. “Orthodox” for Eastern Christians means nothing but “orthodox” - we never made that distinction, and never will. We did not lose our Orthodoxy by returning to communion with Rome; to do so would mean we are heterodox, and that is what we staunchly deny.

I put the term “in communion with Rome” in parentheses because to be truly Orthodox is to be in communion with Rome. In the fullest sense of Orthodoxy, they imply each other, and it should be unnecessary. Due to the ugly reality of schism, I have to put that qualifier in as an afterthought.

 

[Cecilianus]

I believe we’ve moved on, and Catholic dogma not being stuck in the past but being in the ‘development of doctrine’ accepts this and condemns those that would wish a return to how things were done in the days of the apostles or the Ancient Church

This is a question of discipline, not of development of doctrine or of dogma. Development of doctrine is completely irrelevant.

 

[Cecilianus]

The Fourth Lateran Council spoke of the matter when it said '4. On the pride of the Greeks towards the Latins etc.

This is irrelevant. All the posters for many pages now have been Catholic, have not been accusing the Church of Rome for heresy or purifying our altars when a Roman priest says Liturgy on them, or any other of these valid complaints about the Orthodox not in communion with Rome. Again, you are saddling us with charges that this particular individual and the other individuals in this discussion are innocent of.

The Greek pride towards Rome is a sad reality and a legitimate charge. But take the beam out of your own eye. Right now the issue is Latin pride towards the Greeks, also a very real issue and one which you are showing a lot of guilt concerning. Roman pride has contributed as much if not more to the schism as Greek pride. We Orthodox in communion with Rome have repented of this pride. It is time to do your part.

 

[Cecilianus]

I may agree with this but I view it as problematic because many use this as an excuse to ignore clear De Fide teachings because its ‘not our tradition’ or ‘thats latinization’

If they are simply ignoring them and not denying them, why in the world is that a problem?

 

[Cecilianus]

The Roman Catholic world has returned, I believe, to a much more collegial governance where episcopal conferences do indeed manage the internal affairs of, say, the Church in the U.S. and the like.

The bureaucratization of the Latin Church is a cheap parody of Eastern collegiality, and before they can start becoming collegial again they need to become strong bishops again, rather than just middle-management representatives of the Pope. Which means the Pope needs to censure bishops for not doing their job, rather than just doing their job for them.