Our Church; Our Faith & Decentralization

[commenter]

Decentralisation as a practical means of creating a more efficient administration should not be an issue. However decentralisation motivated by ideological reasons is more problematic.

We have already had the concept of allowing a ‘pastoral approach’ as a fudge that effectively runs counter to actual teachings. To allow bishops conferences to run semi-autonomous national Churches which the power to determine the ‘pastoral approach’ to doctrine in their nation effectively puts us into a position similar to the Anglican Communion. Do we really want to go there?

No, I don’t want to go there. In the USA in the 1970s and 80s, there was a movement to define a de facto “American Catholic Church”, which would choose its own “Catholicism”, which just happened to be identical to the secular media. Fortunately, as more orthodox bishops replaced liberals, that threat is buried, but in a shallow grave.

The liberals were not consistently in favor of decentralization. They wanted to shift power away from the local bishops, moving it to bureaucrats in Washington, etc. Traditionalist Catholics were not consistently against decentralization. For instance, they opposed moves from the Vatican in prior decades that restricted local dioceses from offering the TLM. Pope Francis’ move to allow laity confessions by SSPX clergy bypassed local bishops, and bishops conferences!

With Pope Francis, keep in mind that he talks “on record” far more than other popes. With 10 times as many words to pick from, one can “prove” him to be a centralizer, to be a decentralizer, or many other things, some mutually contradictory. The other thing is his style: he tends to present an idea - suppose we do A, B, C - in order to elicit his listeners’ response. Later he may suggest the opposite idea, to get other reactions.

Even if the media were totally fair and objective, people hear about only one hypothetical and draw conclusions about trends. Hundreds of trends.

 

[Brendan_64]

The liberals were not consistently in favor of decentralization. They wanted to shift power away from the local bishops, moving it to bureaucrats in Washington, etc.

I think the driving force behind some of those wanting ‘decentralisation’ is to increase the role of National Bishops’ Conferences. I think it is being driven by ‘liberal’ bishop’s conferences in the West who wish to ‘modernise’ their approach to Church teachings by implementing ‘pastoral approaches’ to those ‘awkward’ teachings that are not popular in the West.

Cardinal Arinze made a very good point on this issue,

"Are you going to tell me that we can have a national bishops’ conference in one country that would approve something which, in another conference, would be seen as sin? Is sin going to change according to national borders? We’d become national churches. Have there not been other religious affiliations in the world that came dangerously near to that?

National bishops’ conferences are important and should have a clear role, but I don’t think it should include these areas. It looks dangerously like nationalizing right and wrong".

 

[commenter]

May I ask if you have been reading Catholic News sites in the past 6 months or so?

PJM

Yes, I have. Actually, I try not to read Catholic News sites too much. Inevitably most of them try to sell newspapers or website traffic by dramatizing some trend in the Church which they consider always urgent. This is especially true of very liberal or very conservative sites. Too much focus on News sites takes my mind off my own spiritual trends. I find the News sites indirectly encourage me to confess the sins of political and religious leaders - to confess the sins of people other than myself.

So I try to spend more time on the Bible, the Catechism, and I need to reread one of the spiritual classics during Lent. And I allow myself some attention to the News sites. (I also need to cut back time on CAF, but that is another issue).

 

[Louman127]

Great Q

BUT, would this NOT then require redefining the TRUTH?

Pope Benedict XVI taught:

“There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth” [to which I ADD AMEN!]

There is a foundational teaching in Moral Theology that states: THE END DOES NOT {CANNOT} JUSTIFY THE MEANS"

God Bless you, good point,

PJM

Well it would take cooperation on part of both Catholic and Orthodox leaders but it would have to be in a way that no truth changes because the truth can not change. It can develop however. I think with the dialog the Pope is creating it will eventually lead to an understanding of each others theology. Because it is the same Christian faith but there are some differences that may need to be ironed out and talked out. For instance on another forum I recently talked with Eastern and Western Catholics and Orthodox Christians. And all of us seemed to agree there is a differentiation in sin but where as the Latin Rite says specifically in language the difference in types of sin (mortal and venial) and then spells out the spiritual and mental factors that may lessen the degree of an offense vs the Orthodox and some Eastern Rites which seems to acknowledge sin but not label it so much as mortal and venial but focus more on the spiritual dimensions of them and then it is easier to discern if it is mortal. So I guess basically it seemed discerning with the Latin Rite was to know the faith and the new language articulated written laws and apply it and discern things spiritually. And Easterners seemed to first discern by faith and self reflection and discernment of your sins all while keeping the faith in the mind and heart. If that makes any kind of sense. I know as Catholics in general we all do all of these things while discerning our sins offensiveness but the order and adjectives I used seem to fit better for each one, as I am trying to get out a thought that is difficult to put into language. I guess the order and the labeling of sins is where it gets “sticky”. Catholics and Orthodox essentially believed in mortal and venial sin but the way it is presented to the faithful in their customs of the faith is different. But in the end all seemed to agree there is a difference in sin and all could basically understand that there is a difference between impulsively stealing a sandwich because you are starving vs murdering somebody.

I guess it seems that one issue is Roman Catholics like to articulate the faith in out spoken developmental language where as some Easterners and Orthodox Christians prefer not so much coming right out and saying things as being definitive if it involves a development in the faith. My thinking is however, if you know something declare it. For example all agree Mary was without sin her whole life. All agree life begins at conception. Well if both agree life begins at conception and if both agree Mary was without sin her entire life then why not give her due honor and have a term for that, hence the Immaculate Conception. Applying that term could also be discerned as being the right thing to do given the apparitions of Mary stating she is the Immaculate Conception.

So given that experience I think that if we could all talk things out in good theological conversations eventually things would come back together. Because the Catholic and Orthodox faith are essentially the same, as they would have to be because they are essentially one Church. So I think language barriers, custom barriers, and pride is what holds the two apart. Where as if we recognize both as true since they are one then that would open up theological discussion and inspection and be able to battle this schism from a different angle. Because if they are both true Churches how could there be a difference in a matter of faith? There shouldn’t be if the Church is sustained by God. So we need to iron out what the issues of each branch of the One Body of Christ are and I think it has to start with theology. Seemingly contradictory aspects of the faith are actually paradoxes so we seem to clash heads on some theological terms and language. Instead of each branch saying one is the true Church vs the other is not we need to focus on that it is one Church only. And then after that the Catholic side shows Orthodox Christians why they should come back under the one head in the physical realm, the Pope. And we show Orthodox Christians that the Pope doesn’t have simply a supremacy of honor and that to simply have a Pope for honorary purposes serves no actual purpose to the Body of Christ. If it is for honorary purposes alone we hold the Pope to such a high esteem than he has been given a position of vanity and pride. Because then it turns into you’re specially honored for no actual real reason or purpose, just because you sit in the chair of Peter. So I think if the Pope goes over the role of his office position and the others positions it may show that it is not a matter of governing the Church with an iron fist all the time but with unity, charity, and only if it is necessary then the velvet glove must come off revealing the governing iron fist. The schism happened because too many people in authority were constantly ruling with an iron fist because the schism has been said to be the result because of issues on both sides.

P.S. to all reading this I don’t want to open up a can of worms but I had answer the question I was asked.

 

[PJM]

Decentralisation as a practical means of creating a more efficient administration should not be an issue. However decentralisation motivated by ideological reasons is more problematic.

We have already had the concept of allowing a ‘pastoral approach’ as a fudge that effectively runs counter to actual teachings. To allow bishops conferences to run semi-autonomous national Churches which the power to determine the ‘pastoral approach’ to doctrine in their nation effectively puts us into a position similar to the Anglican Communion. Do we really want to go there?

While I agree this has NOT fully been implemented as of yet.

Rome has been making noises that it shall however become [at least it seems very likely???] in the not too distant future,

Many German Bishops have expressed a GRAVE desire for this NEW mode of governing the RCC.

We have MUCH to pray about

God Bless you,

PJM

 

[Brendan_64]

We have MUCH to pray about

Indeed we do.

 

[PJM]

Well it would take cooperation on part of both Catholic and Orthodox leaders but it would have to be in a way that no truth changes because the truth can not change. It can develop however. I think with the dialog the Pope is creating it will eventually lead to an understanding of each others theology. Because it is the same Christian faith but there are some differences that may need to be ironed out and talked out. For instance on another forum I recently talked with Eastern and Western Catholics and Orthodox Christians. And all of us seemed to agree there is a differentiation in sin but where as the Latin Rite says specifically in language the difference in types of sin (mortal and venial) and then spells out the spiritual and mental factors that may lessen the degree of an offense vs the Orthodox and some Eastern Rites which seems to acknowledge sin but not label it so much as mortal and venial but focus more on the spiritual dimensions of them and then it is easier to discern if it is mortal. So I guess basically it seemed discerning with the Latin Rite was to know the faith and the new language articulated written laws and apply it and discern things spiritually. And Easterners seemed to first discern by faith and self reflection and discernment of your sins all while keeping the faith in the mind and heart. If that makes any kind of sense. I know as Catholics in general we all do all of these things while discerning our sins offensiveness but the order and adjectives I used seem to fit better for each one, as I am trying to get out a thought that is difficult to put into language. I guess the order and the labeling of sins is where it gets “sticky”. Catholics and Orthodox essentially believed in mortal and venial sin but the way it is presented to the faithful in their customs of the faith is different. But in the end all seemed to agree there is a difference in sin and all could basically understand that there is a difference between impulsively stealing a sandwich because you are starving vs murdering somebody.

I guess it seems that one issue is Roman Catholics like to articulate the faith in out spoken developmental language where as some Easterners and Orthodox Christians prefer not so much coming right out and saying things as being definitive if it involves a development in the faith. My thinking is however, if you know something declare it. For example all agree Mary was without sin her whole life. All agree life begins at conception. Well if both agree life begins at conception and if both agree Mary was without sin her entire life then why not give her due honor and have a term for that, hence the Immaculate Conception. Applying that term could also be discerned as being the right thing to do given the apparitions of Mary stating she is the Immaculate Conception.

So given that experience I think that if we could all talk things out in good theological conversations eventually things would come back together. Because the Catholic and Orthodox faith are essentially the same, as they would have to be because they are essentially one Church. So I think language barriers, custom barriers, and pride is what holds the two apart. Where as if we recognize both as true since they are one then that would open up theological discussion and inspection and be able to battle this schism from a different angle. Because if they are both true Churches how could there be a difference in a matter of faith? There shouldn’t be if the Church is sustained by God. So we need to iron out what the issues of each branch of the One Body of Christ are and I think it has to start with theology. Seemingly contradictory aspects of the faith are actually paradoxes so we seem to clash heads on some theological terms and language. Instead of each branch saying one is the true Church vs the other is not we need to focus on that it is one Church only. And then after that the Catholic side shows Orthodox Christians why they should come back under the one head in the physical realm, the Pope. And we show Orthodox Christians that the Pope doesn’t have simply a supremacy of honor and that to simply have a Pope for honorary purposes serves no actual purpose to the Body of Christ. If it is for honorary purposes alone we hold the Pope to such a high esteem than he has been given a position of vanity and pride. Because then it turns into you’re specially honored for no actual real reason or purpose, just because you sit in the chair of Peter. So I think if the Pope goes over the role of his office position and the others positions it may show that it is not a matter of governing the Church with an iron fist all the time but with unity, charity, and only if it is necessary then the velvet glove must come off revealing the governing iron fist. The schism happened because too many people in authority were constantly ruling with an iron fist because the schism has been said to be the result because of issues on both sides.

P.S. to all reading this I don’t want to open up a can of worms but I had answer the question I was asked.

Thank you my friend, and WELCOME to CAF!

The RCC hierarchy was set by Jesus Himself: Mt 16:18-19 & Mt 28: 19-20 in summary form prove this.

No where in the entire bible does God; Yahweh or Jesus give any indication of acceptance of DIFFERING Faith beliefs. {Minor or major}

The RCC is modeled on the OT, and times of Jesus Visitation where HIGH PRIEST Exhibited the Role we now term the Papacy.

I too am anxious for a full reconciliation with our Eastern Brethren. BUT as you correctly stated; “truth” must be what it is: singular per defined issue

God Bless you,

PJM

 

[Brendan_64]

No where in the entire bible does God; Yahweh or Jesus give any indication of acceptance of DIFFERING Faith beliefs. {Minor or major}

Yes indeed. Truth is absolute, truth cannot contradict truth.

We should treat people who hold differing beliefs to ours with respect, but we must never accept that there is any validity in any belief that contradicts, in any way, the teachings of the Catholic Church.

A “What’s right for you is right for you and what’s right for me is right for me, so let’s talk about it and come to some agreement based around learning from each other and compromising” type of approach is false ecumenism and leads to indifferentism. The purpose of ecumenical dialogue must be to, eventually, convert the other person to the one true Catholic faith.

 

[dmar198]

The purpose of ecumenical dialogue must be to, eventually, convert the other person to the one true Catholic faith.

In some sense I think this is true, but in another sense I think it is not. I think dialoging about the truth is good even if the goal is not to convert anyone. The reason is that truth is good in itself. St. Francis preached the Gospel even when no one was listening. He preached to birds if the people said no, because he just wanted to speak the truth. Truth is good in itself. It is good Also if people convert, but I think it is okay to have a conversation with someone without a goal of converting him or her, and in those conversations we should speak the truth anyway. And we should always Pray for conversions.

 

[Louman127]

A “What’s right for you is right for you and what’s right for me is right for me, so let’s talk about it and come to some agreement based around learning from each other and compromising” type of approach is false ecumenism and leads to indifferentism."
Is in no way shape or form what I was insinuating and I could not articulate better what I meant than in my previous post.

If both Churches have declared they both have valid sacraments than there is vaildity to them, as they also both have apostolic succession. However, as Catholics we obviously know we have the complete fullness. But does that mean growth cannot come forth from the beautiful reunion of the entire Church? Change cannot happen but Developement is not change and developement has been occurring since the beginning. As I also said in earlier post that “the fruits of both Churches together”. But for this to happen no truth can change but that does not exclude development of our understanding. We are humans we grow and learn gradually over time. And also you right the goal is to lead to conversion to Catholicism hence when I said for them “to come under the one head in the physical realm, the Pope.”

 

[Brendan_64]

In some sense I think this is true, but in another sense I think it is not. I think dialoging about the truth is good even if the goal is not to convert anyone. The reason is that truth is good in itself. St. Francis preached the Gospel even when no one was listening. He preached to birds if the people said no, because he just wanted to speak the truth. Truth is good in itself. It is good Also if people convert, but I think it is okay to have a conversation with someone without a goal of converting him or her, and in those conversations we should speak the truth anyway. And we should always Pray for conversions.

But what is the point of dialoging with someone who has a different view of what the truth is if the aim is not to convert? How can we learn about truth through talking to someone who holds a view that contradicts the truth?

A real danger of this approach is reverse-evangelisation. A person, through such dialogue, may end up moving towards accepting the other person’s beliefs as being valid, and then to holding these beliefs themselves. And don’t assume that the person who you are talking to isn’t actively trying to evangelise you to their beliefs, just because they appear to just want dialogue.

St Francis talking to the birds didn’t pose such risks because the birds didn’t talk back.

Christ commanded us to go and make disciples of all the nations, He didn’t command us to go and have interesting chats about each others belief systems.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I guess it seems that one issue is Roman Catholics like to articulate the faith in out spoken developmental language where as some Easterners and Orthodox Christians prefer not so much coming right out and saying things as being definitive if it involves a development in the faith. My thinking is however, if you know something declare it. For example all agree Mary was without sin her whole life. All agree life begins at conception. Well if both agree life begins at conception and if both agree Mary was without sin her entire life then why not give her due honor and have a term for that, hence the Immaculate Conception. Applying that term could also be discerned as being the right thing to do given the apparitions of Mary stating she is the Immaculate Conception.

So given that experience I think that if we could all talk things out in good theological conversations eventually things would come back together. Because the Catholic and Orthodox faith are essentially the same, as they would have to be because they are essentially one Church. So I think language barriers, custom barriers, and pride is what holds the two apart. Where as if we recognize both as true since they are one then that would open up theological discussion and inspection and be able to battle this schism from a different angle. Because if they are both true Churches how could there be a difference in a matter of faith? There shouldn’t be if the Church is sustained by God. So we need to iron out what the issues of each branch of the One Body of Christ are and I think it has to start with theology. Seemingly contradictory aspects of the faith are actually paradoxes so we seem to clash heads on some theological terms and language. Instead of each branch saying one is the true Church vs the other is not we need to focus on that it is one Church only. And then after that the Catholic side shows Orthodox Christians why they should come back under the one head in the physical realm, the Pope. And we show Orthodox Christians that the Pope doesn’t have simply a supremacy of honor and that to simply have a Pope for honorary purposes serves no actual purpose to the Body of Christ. If it is for honorary purposes alone we hold the Pope to such a high esteem than he has been given a position of vanity and pride. Because then it turns into you’re specially honored for no actual real reason or purpose, just because you sit in the chair of Peter. So I think if the Pope goes over the role of his office position and the others positions it may show that it is not a matter of governing the Church with an iron fist all the time but with unity, charity, and only if it is necessary then the velvet glove must come off revealing the governing iron fist. The schism happened because too many people in authority were constantly ruling with an iron fist because the schism has been said to be the result because of issues on both sides.

P.S. to all reading this I don’t want to open up a can of worms but I had answer the question I was asked.

1). Orthodoxy and Catholicism both reject the branch theory of the Church, rendering it irrelevant in ecumenical dialogue.

2). The Orthodox faith and the Catholic faith are not essentially the same. Patriarch Bartholomew waxes eloquent on the subject. He spoke during a speech at Mt. Ethos 2011,“Speaking years ago to our Roman Catholic brothers I pointed out the path regularly followed by the Roman Catholic Church by accepting more and new doctrines, and in its journey towards our Church, instead of converging towards union, it has departed and driven further apart one another” (University of Georgetown, 21 October 1997), added Mr. Bartholomew. He said further:

“Furthermore, it is not true that we overlook the preconditions to the union of churches, nor is it true that we overlook the differences which prevent union.”

He also said during a different speech, "Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

The problem is Rome’s progressive stance regarding the development of doctrine. The truth of the faith is still unfolding. It was not that many years ago that some Catholic Theologians wanted the Pope to give Mary the title of “Coredemporix”, effectively making a new doctrine. From the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic Church has also made not unimportant changes in how the liturgy is understood and structured.

 

[Louman127]

1). Orthodoxy and Catholicism both reject the branch theory of the Church, rendering it irrelevant in ecumenical dialogue.

2). The Orthodox faith and the Catholic faith are not essentially the same. Patriarch Bartholomew waxes eloquent on the subject. He spoke during a speech at Mt. Ethos 2011,“Speaking years ago to our Roman Catholic brothers I pointed out the path regularly followed by the Roman Catholic Church by accepting more and new doctrines, and in its journey towards our Church, instead of converging towards union, it has departed and driven further apart one another” (University of Georgetown, 21 October 1997), added Mr. Bartholomew. He said further:

“Furthermore, it is not true that we overlook the preconditions to the union of churches, nor is it true that we overlook the differences which prevent union.”

He also said during a different speech, "Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

The problem is Rome’s progressive stance regarding the development of doctrine. The truth of the faith is still unfolding. It was not that many years ago that some Catholic Theologians wanted the Pope to give Mary the title of “Coredemporix”, effectively making a new doctrine. From the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic Church has also made not unimportant changes in how the liturgy is understood and structured.

As I said I do not wish to open a can of worms I merely answered a question I was asked. Whether the faith is essentially the same one can argue about based on what that means. Of course there are a plethora of differences and obstacles between the two. No one is disputing that. I mean they have the same roots so much so they were one until around the 11th century. That means something. I hardly find that a quote from an authoritative leader to be grounds to say they are not alike in faith and morals and essentially the same as in roots, apostolic succession, etc. As authoritative members are human as well.

Both Churches have used language like the “two lungs” analogy.

And I am not referring to any branch theory. The term branch was used as in the example: One Catholic Church but there are branches as in other Rites, Latin Rite, Maronite, Byzantine, etc. So the term branch had no attachment to any outside pre thought of theory.

And I never accused anyone of “overlooking preconditions of union”

And about the theologians desiring the name of coredemporix. Well it didn’t happen and as a Catholic I would say the Holy Spirit guided the Church to a more propper and more fitting title. Because theologians can help and present ideas as much as they want but they are not the magesterium.

So that’s my thought process.

 

[dmar198]

But what is the point of dialoging with someone who has a different view of what the truth is if the aim is not to convert? How can we learn about truth through talking to someone who holds a view that contradicts the truth?

A real danger of this approach is reverse-evangelisation. A person, through such dialogue, may end up moving towards accepting the other person’s beliefs as being valid, and then to holding these beliefs themselves. And don’t assume that the person who you are talking to isn’t actively trying to evangelise you to their beliefs, just because they appear to just want dialogue.

St Francis talking to the birds didn’t pose such risks because the birds didn’t talk back.

Christ commanded us to go and make disciples of all the nations, He didn’t command us to go and have interesting chats about each others belief systems.

After I’ve thought about it some more, I agree more with you than I do with my prior post. I retract my prior post. (To be clear, that’s this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13715154)

 

[PJM]

Yes indeed. Truth is absolute, truth cannot contradict truth.

We should treat people who hold differing beliefs to ours with respect, but we must never accept that there is any validity in any belief that contradicts, in any way, the teachings of the Catholic Church.

A “What’s right for you is right for you and what’s right for me is right for me, so let’s talk about it and come to some agreement based around learning from each other and compromising” type of approach is false ecumenism and leads to indifferentism. The purpose of ecumenical dialogue must be to, eventually, convert the other person to the one true Catholic faith.

Absolutely correct:thumbsup:

Thank you,

PJM

 

[babochka]

2). The Orthodox faith and the Catholic faith are not essentially the same. Patriarch Bartholomew waxes eloquent on the subject. He spoke during a speech at Mt. Ethos 2011,“Speaking years ago to our Roman Catholic brothers I pointed out the path regularly followed by the Roman Catholic Church by accepting more and new doctrines, and in its journey towards our Church, instead of converging towards union, it has departed and driven further apart one another” (University of Georgetown, 21 October 1997), **added Mr. Bartholomew. **He said further:

Did you really refer to the Patriarch of Constantinople as “Mr. Bartholemew”? That’s like saying “Mr. Benedict” or “Mr. Francis”. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to give him the same level of respect and honor given to him by the Catholic Church?

 

[Genesis315]

Did you really refer to the Patriarch of Constantinople as “Mr. Bartholemew”? That’s like saying “Mr. Benedict” or “Mr. Francis”. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to give him the same level of respect and honor given to him by the Catholic Church?

That’s how it appears in other sources, including EO sites. I’m guessing it’s a translation issue from the original. Here’s an example:

johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/10/ecumenical-patriarch-addresses_10.html