Thanks as always Phillip for your additional comments. And yes, one could argue the other way as well. When one considers the geographic reach of the Roman Church and the political turmoil it has survived in various areas throughout the world, one could argue that its reach and centrality in several aspects helped the Church survive and thrive even when parts of the Church faced the darkest of times. We can look to our own Eastern Catholic cousins in Eastern Europe as a perfect example. Despite suppression and martyrdom of many in defense of their Church under communist regimes, their faith in God and the knowledge that their Church would stand irrespective had to be a source of comfort and strength throughout those difficult times.
In addition, considering the broad and global scope of the Roman Church, one could also argue that this centrality ensured a consistency of thought and message that were essential to keeping the traditions and discipline of the Church intact as the Roman Church grew and spread. We see other instances around us where more liberal lines of thinking have influenced and infiltrated hierarchies of other smaller churches (e.g. the Anglican communion). And this has happened over the course of a few generations. In retrospect, it is amazing that the Catholic Church has managed to maintain itself and its teachings on a global scale for so very long.
And yet, that doesn’t mean that things can’t work differently in a reunified Church, and our most recent Pontiffs have definitely expressed a willingness to consider other options, including a redefined Papacy. If our Pontiffs can be open-minded in this regard, I hope we can as well!
