Large organisations need to be run, they cannot simply run themselves. The first Christians soon discovered this and we see, in Acts and in the Epistles, a structure being developed, partly to allow for different charisma, and partly because even house churches need leaders. Church leadership is perhaps the most testing type of leadership. The successors of the Apostles are endowed with a great deal of spiritual as well as ordinary power, and if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then those exercising such power need our prayers even more than other leaders. There was once a time when the ruler could just say ‘off with his head’, and it was out of such episodes that more conciliar forms of governance arose – in England Magna Carta was a direct response to King John’s pressing of his powers beyond custom and practice; where rulers cannot be trusted to keep their word, their subjects look for ways to bind them, and, in extreme cases, to depose them.
Church history is full of examples of the difficulties attendant on trying to secure consensus on issues of doctrine; nearly every schism has emerged from the failure to achieve agreement. Constantine embedded the idea of having a Church Ciuncil yo reach agreement on such matters; if he had expected good and holy men to find the way to agreement easy, Nicaea disabused him. Subsequent Councils, like the most recent Church Synods, suggest that if times change, human nature does not. The Church failed to find a consensus on the vexed issue of whether remarried people could receive Communion under any circumstances. This came as a surprise to those who thought Canon Law already embodied a consensus; but, of course, what was really meant was that the Church had not agreed to trim its sails to the prevailing wind. So, after attempts to get the required consensus, attempts were made to assert that that consensus really had been reached. These were not authoritative voices, but the intended direction of travel was clear. Which is why, as they are bound to, some Cardinals asked questions of the Pope. He, as we know, has not replied. We hear voices raised taking unguardedly on both sides of the issue.
At which point we return to the subject of governance. The point of having a teaching Magisterium is that it should teach. The point of having Synods is they should allow the Pope to throw light on vexed issues. There is always the old way, of the ruler asserting that his will is the law. It is the old way for a reason – it has never ended well. So perhaps the Holy Father is wise to say nothing! Newman bade us drink to a well-formed conscience even before toasting the Pope – there is wisdom in that.
“The point of having a teaching Magisterium is that it should teach…So perhaps the Holy Father is wise to say nothing!”
In the same paragraph! Well, isn’t the Holy Father part of the Magisterium? Is not part of governance the responsibly to clarify?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I forgot Americans tend not to do irony ☺️
LikeLike
The whole purpose of the Papacy it seems to me is to answer questions that have to do with faith and morals. The office should require him to answer unless he is trying desperately to hide something. I pray he comes to his senses and answers forthrightly that which is his duty to do.
LikeLike
Another thing that perhaps is being left out of this idea of governance is the sensus fidei and its importance to informing Popes over the life of the Church
Card. Newman writes: “There was a temporary suspense of the function of the Ecclesia docens. The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicaea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years”. During this period, he adds, “the Divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the Episcopate” __ John Henry Newman, On consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, Geoffrey Chapman, London 1961, pp. 75 and 77.
.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The difficulty here is the distinguish between it and the spirit of the age. Ask most Catholics and you’d get a majority for contraception and communion for the divorced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, which is a mistake of the hierarchy once again for not instructing and disciplining errors among their flock. So you are quite right; great caution would need to be used in determining what the sense of the faithful actually is. We obviously have a lot of folks who identify as Catholic who are anything but faithful . . . so it is very difficult indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
C, have you read the following article. I think it is really good in contrasting JPII’s writings with Amoris Laetitia and the words of those who have defended the document.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5237/the_four_cardinals_and_the_encyclical_in_the_room.aspx
LikeLiked by 1 person
I liked it also. C won’t though, it’s too black and white.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is probably the best comparison I have seen yet . . . side by side.
LikeLike
Thanks very much, Scoop!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome. Hope you find it useful for your own discernment.
LikeLike
Scoop & C,
Here is another article discussing AL and it’s contradictions and consequences by Ross Douthat. I will quote a paragraph to give you the flavor of it.
“At prior points in the Francis-era Catholic controversies I have noted with a certain alarm that the “liberal” side and the “conservative” side don’t seem to have much of a theological language in common; we argue past each other because we almost seem to belong to different Christian communities, with different baseline assumptions all the way down to the question of who Jesus actually was. But what is striking about reading Buttiglione and McElroy back-to-back is that here we have two supporters of Pope Francis who seem to be speaking different religious languages — Buttiglione trying to interpret “Amoris” in consonance with older Catholic ideas and categories, the bishop of San Diego essentially acting as those those ideas and categories have been superseded; Buttiglione envisioning a change that affects a few; the bishop of San Diego envisioning one that’s clearly for the many; Buttiglione laboring to treat “Amoris” as a modest development of doctrine; the bishop of San Diego entirely unconcerned with potential contradiction with the Catholicism of the ancient and very recent past.”
Read the whole article here: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/douthat/2016/12/01/the-end-of-catholic-marriage/?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/2S2boAmOim
LikeLike
I read it yesterday. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person