Do Eastern / Oriental Catholics see this as a promising direction? It isn’t the first time that he has spoken of the need for greater collegiality.
You are concerned about conference expenses and travel logistics?
Yes, I am concerned about expenses, and the Pope himself told bishops not to be “airport bishops.”
A good point. However, in the interview passage quoted in the OP, there is this:
This suggests to me two possibilities:
I don’t see it. Where do you get the idea that it will be super expensive and create ‘airport bishops’? Is that something you have observed of eastern Christians?
Collegiality is nothing to fear. Why not give your Bishops real power and independence, instead of having them be essentially the Suffragan Bishops to the Pope.
That was very interesting and I had no prior knowledge on this before you mentioned it. Thank you for sharing this information.
It would not have to be that. For instance Rome claiming that it has that jurisdiction doesn’t mean it is particularly prudent that it exercise it in any given situation or context. It could devolve power on purely prudential grounds, since clearly in the here-and-now the Pope is not competent to govern the entire Church with nothing to aid him but a treacherous Curia and a negligent college of bishops.
I’m a little confused
but I think I see where you’re going. I suppose the above-quote is true enough, but my point was restoration of the Synodal model in the West.Vatican I declared that papal universal jurisdiction is dogma. This means, as you know, that all Catholics are bound to believe it as “de fide”. That being said, the Church has always understood that the APPLICATION of dogma is a matter of Church discipline - the power to bind and loose. For example, it is a matter of faith that Christ gave the Church the power to absolve sin. The form in which penance is administered has varied. I think the same principle can apply here. We believe as a matter of faith that the Pope possesses universal jurisdiction, but it is a matter of Church discipline when and why that jurisdiction is invoked. Even now, there are plenty of local issues in which the Pope never weighs in - though in theory he could. It would simply be a shift in emphasis - yes the Pope “can” intervene but he only “will” when it is deemed truly “necessary”. That being said, even now the Pope can determine to what degree he wishes to involve his brother bishops in decisions. Pope Francis could sit in a locked office ruling by decree, but he prefers to work with his new group of eight cardinals.
I believe along the lines of twf, although I do not believe ecclesiastically the Holy Father would do Mother Church and the Papacy any favors in the pontiff usurping the otherwise rightful power and authority of any bishop and even more so in regards a primate or Patriarch of a sui juris Church. The dogma is–as I understand it–that were various heresies spring up within the Church or in different provinces, the Pope could take decisive action, almost always with his brother bishops, to stem the flow of poisonous doctrine or actions allegedly in the name of the Church. It does not mean the Pope is empowered to micromanage every decision in every eparchy or diocese in communion with Rome. I think that would fly in the face of long established precedent that the pontiff lets the Patriarchs run their sui juris churches unless there is a real threat to the worldwide Church, and then it is usually via synods or councils that problems are rectified.
I am saying whether or not we ought to have a particular model of governance is one thing and whether or not a particular model of governance is, in principle, just is another. It is possible for Rome to maintain that ultramontanism in, in principle, just on doctrinal grounds while embracing a synodal form of governance for prudential reasons.I’m a little confused
If I read what you’re saying correctly, though, it seems to imply maintenance of the current heirarchical model, albeit a somewhat watered-down version. If that’s it, I personally don’t think it would work too well. Kind of like the Articles of Confederation or the French Fourth Republic: a little too “helter-skelter” to be really effective. Now, if that’s not it, please clarify for me.
FWLIW, I disagree, in particular with the bolded portion. Ultramontanism is, by nature, hierarchical, and there cannot be two concurrent forms of governance. It has to be one or the other.
While I will not address the first part (been there, done that, as they say, often enough in this forum, and I’d just as soon avoid redundancy), I will comment on the second.
Yes, I have seen your views on the matter. I agree that patriarchates is probably not the way to go. I would support a national synodal model based on the traditional primatial sees. My point was more general - simply that both Pope Francis and then Cardinal Ratzinger seem to feel, as do I, that a devolution of day-to-day management from Rome to synods would not contravene the doctrine of papal universal jurisdiction.
