Synodality and decentralization

[Pulvis]

ncregister.com/daily-news/decentralization-what-would-be-acceptable/

By Edward Pentin.
Thoughts?

 

[dans0622]

… Thoughts?

I don’t think of the Church as being all that “centralized.” There’s a lot of variety out there (here) right now and a great many people “do their own thing.”

As to the study session itself–great. Let’s see what they come up with.

Dan

 

[Usige]

My greatest concern is that we will see something more akin to the Anglican communion where each Bishops conference will decide discipline, liturgical norms, and perhaps even matters of doctrine. We have that to some degree now, but in essence I am reading the proposal as dissolving most of the curia and letting local Bishops conferences decide for themselves. It means that if radicalized elements decide to change aspect of the faith or liturgy that there is no backstop like the Congregation for Divine Worship to ensure that innovation does not leads to an entirely new species of worship. Do we really want to go down a road where each conference is in communion with Rome, but not necessarily each other?

I don’t think that would happen immediately, but I suspect you would start to see a disintegration of unity over the course of decades. We could very well be in a place in 100 years where Germany and Belgium sanctifies homosexual unions by creating their own understanding of the sacrament of Matrimony.

I think there still needs to be a central core to the Church governance to maintain universal norms. Study where things might be decentralized, but always with an eye that a Catholic from Uganda should not end up in Norway wondering if it’s the same church.

 

[rfournier103]

My greatest concern is that we will see something more akin to the Anglican communion where each Bishops conference will decide discipline, liturgical norms, and perhaps even matters of doctrine. We have that to some degree now, but in essence I am reading the proposal as dissolving most of the curia and letting local Bishops conferences decide for themselves. It means that if radicalized elements decide to change aspect of the faith or liturgy that there is no backstop like the Congregation for Divine Worship to ensure that innovation does not leads to an entirely new species of worship. Do we really want to go down a road where each conference is in communion with Rome, but not necessarily each other?

I don’t think that would happen immediately, but I suspect you would start to see a disintegration of unity over the course of decades. We could very well be in a place in 100 years where Germany and Belgium sanctifies homosexual unions by creating their own understanding of the sacrament of Matrimony.

I think there still needs to be a central core to the Church governance to maintain universal norms. Study where things might be decentralized, but always with an eye that a Catholic from Uganda should not end up in Norway wondering if it’s the same church.

I agree with this 1000%.

I really don’t see how this can be a good thing. I actually think we need MORE centralization and MORE unity. We are ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We need more control and structure from Rome. Not less.

(heavily edited to comply with forum rules)

 

[twf]

A lot of people seem to fear synodality, but this fear seems to be more rooted in a distrust of local bishops rather than a coherent theological or historical argument. I too have concerns with some of the statements and actions of many of, say, the German bishops. But this has nothing to do with synodality. They are doing their own thing within the existing structures! The primacy of Rome is a dogma of the faith. No matter what structural changes are put in place the pope will always have the right to interfere in cases of heresy or abuse. I also agree with Dan that there is already a lot more autonomy and local variation than most people seem to realize.
That being said, the Second Vatican Council reiterated a truth of our faith that www very much lived in the early Church but somewhat forgotten in recent centuries. The bishops are not mere assistants of the pope. They like him receive their authority directly from Christ. While the pope’s jurisdiction is universal and other bishops’ jurisdiction is local, all bishops are true vicars of Christ as the council stated. The Council also reminded us that it is the pope AND bishops in Union with him, the entire college of bishops, that governs the Church. That’s why ecumenical councils are so important- they are an exercise of the entire college with and under its head the pope. We also know that the collective teaching of the bishops in Union with the pope is infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium.
Historically synods were the norm. Local synods were convened regularly and made real, binding decisions. For most of Church history, local churches weren’t waiting for Rome to micromanage their affairs. Decisions were made locally. Rome had primacy to intervene when necessary. Why, for example, does Rome now name the vast majority of bishops around the world? This is a complete novelty and would have been unthinkable for most of Church history. Even 200 years ago this wasn’t the case. The Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, continue to be governed by local synods and have unity of doctrine. Their synods elect their own bishops locally and yet none of them are promoting gay civil unions or liturgical novelties as you find among Rome, centralized appointed bishops.

 

[Havard]

A lot of people seem to fear synodality, but this fear seems to be more rooted in a distrust of local bishops rather than a coherent theological or historical argument. I too have concerns with some of the statements and actions of many of, say, the German bishops. But this has nothing to do with synodality. They are doing their own thing within the existing structures! The primacy of Rome is a dogma of the faith. No matter what structural changes are put in place the pope will always have the right to interfere in cases of heresy or abuse. I also agree with Dan that there is already a lot more autonomy and local variation than most people seem to realize.
That being said, the Second Vatican Council reiterated a truth of our faith that www very much lived in the early Church but somewhat forgotten in recent centuries. The bishops are not mere assistants of the pope. They like him receive their authority directly from Christ. While the pope’s jurisdiction is universal and other bishops’ jurisdiction is local, all bishops are true vicars of Christ as the council stated. The Council also reminded us that it is the pope AND bishops in Union with him, the entire college of bishops, that governs the Church. That’s why ecumenical councils are so important- they are an exercise of the entire college with and under its head the pope. We also know that the collective teaching of the bishops in Union with the pope is infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium.
Historically synods were the norm. Local synods were convened regularly and made real, binding decisions. For most of Church history, local churches weren’t waiting for Rome to micromanage their affairs. Decisions were made locally. Rome had primacy to intervene when necessary. Why, for example, does Rome now name the vast majority of bishops around the world? This is a complete novelty and would have been unthinkable for most of Church history. Even 200 years ago this wasn’t the case. The Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, continue to be governed by local synods and have unity of doctrine. Their synods elect their own bishops locally and yet none of them are promoting gay civil unions or liturgical novelties as you find among Rome, centralized appointed bishops.

With respect to this point made in the article:

Another respected and well-informed theologian, who preferred to speak anonymously, stressed that while synodality can “claim some ecclesiological pedigree, decentralization cannot.” Moreover, he said the latter is a “political category” concealing a “theological agenda.”

I do hear griping about decentralization, but not about synodality. But that’s just my experience.