Catholic Church must be more conciliar...

[dUSt]

[url="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505465.htm"]Click here for article[/url]

My summary can be eloquently paraphrased into two words:

Battered Shrimp.

[Snarf]

I think the Church has done a good job at becoming more conciliar, but obviously Protestants do not understand the nature of the papacy enough to realize that a democratic Church is the ultimate bad idea. There are the extremes of an absolute democratic theocratic body and a total papal dictatorship, and reality should always fall somewhere in between. Where exactly in the middle the papacy should reside is subjective to historical context; the Middle Ages demanded popes who could lay down the law and take names, whereas now ecumenicism demands much more sensitivity that demands conciliar advice.

Obviously, it would be a disaster if the pope were reduced to a mere coat of arms and fancy mitre, and I can see no case in which a council should override an Ex Cathedra proclamation. I believe in metaphysical consequence to the point that if a bad pope is elected, God would prevent him from doing anything stupid.

So, my take on the article is that the papacy of JPII was quite conciliar enough, and it's too early to tell about Ben. However, the groups who formulated this opinion see the papacy as obsolete, and from that angle they want to bastardize it to the point that it "makes sense" to them. I'm not saying they aren't extremely well-educated, but they're simply trapped in the sola gratia superstructure.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]...Georgetown University.[/quote]

Well, that's a spoiler. Of course the article is carp!

[toledo_jesus]

any ecumenism which does not lead to the reconciliation of the Protestants with the One True Church is faulty and to be avoided. They are wrong, and we need to keep that in mind. At my parish they pray for the LARC people. But I ask myself what do they actually do towards getting the L and A part back to the RC part?
Dialogue which doesn't lead to the end of protestantism (or to put it nicely, a unified Church) is empty.

[son_of_angels]

I see no point in the church becoming more conciliar. Synodal and localized, yes, with more active leadership by the Archbishops at the provincial level, the restoration of the Archdiaconate, the revival of the notion of regional primacy by the metropolitan sees, the increased visibility of Papal legates and cardinals. All of these things are ways to grow leadership from its sacramental qualities as opposed to the way things are at present, which focus on the administrative qualities of Catholic leadership. Increasing the number of lay people (especially those who are not even consecrated to the religious life) in leadership, will only continue to bloat the Catholic hierarchy making it even more unmanageable than it already is.

Think about the Episcopal church, who have, at every level, Lay houses of leadership. They can't keep control of anything, and are continually trying to apologize and fix what they can't prevent. We will face a similar fate if we adopt some kind of "conciliar" form of church governance.

Moreover a conciliar governance obscures the true nature of the Church. The Church, by the divine constitution given it in Christ, is hierarchical. The totality of Christian power on earth resides in the office of the Roman pontiff. This is not simply an administrative leadership definition, this is DOGMA. Why obscure our teachings for the pleasure of Protestants and Greeks?

Moreover the Conciliar notion has been the constant bane of the papacy since before the Council of Florence, and was repeatedly condemned during that time period. Conciliar leaders also wanted a regular council to determine church governance, etc. It was struck down.

[Lil Red]

i agree with dUSt. these people can "re-envision the papacy" all they want ... it's not going to change the way they want it to.

[thessalonian]

Councilar theory has been rejected by the Church. There is no need to dredge it up out of the grave once again. My guess is that some of this talk about becoming more council comes from those wishing a Vatican III that will ordain women as priests. I ran in to a bunch of them calling for that last week.

Blessings

[Aloysius]

I think it will be awesome to see the looks on the faces of those people when they have a Trent II

:

[MilesChristi]

[quote]I see no point in the church becoming more conciliar. Synodal and localized, yes, with more active leadership by the Archbishops at the provincial level, the restoration of the Archdiaconate, the revival of the notion of regional primacy by the metropolitan sees, the increased visibility of Papal legates and cardinals. All of these things are ways to grow leadership from its sacramental qualities as opposed to the way things are at present, which focus on the administrative qualities of Catholic leadership.[/quote]



I like your thinking, son of angels!

[Kilroy the Ninja]

mmmmmmmmmm battered shrimp

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 30 2005, 11:24 AM']I think it will be awesome to see the looks on the faces of those people when they have a Trent II

:
[right][snapback]742064[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Jiggle Billy]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 30 2005, 08:19 AM']any ecumenism which does not lead to the reconciliation of the Protestants with the One True Church is faulty and to be avoided.  They are wrong, and we need to keep that in mind.  At my parish they pray for the LARC people.  But I ask myself what do they actually do towards getting the L and A part back to the RC part? 
Dialogue which doesn't lead to the end of protestantism (or to put it nicely, a unified Church) is empty.
[right][snapback]741866[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So, what's your plan? "Hey idiots! You need to forget about your 500 years of culture because you are wrong, wrong, wrong! : " But seriously, Protestants probably won't be interested in joining the dialog if the only possible outcome is their total assimilation.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Sep 30 2005, 02:40 AM']I think the Church has done a good job at becoming more conciliar, but obviously Protestants do not understand the nature of the papacy enough to realize that a democratic Church is the ultimate bad idea.  There are the extremes of an absolute democratic theocratic body and a total papal dictatorship, and reality should always fall somewhere in between.  Where exactly in the middle the papacy should reside is subjective to historical context; the Middle Ages demanded popes who could lay down the law and take names, whereas now ecumenicism demands much more sensitivity that demands conciliar advice.

Obviously, it would be a disaster if the pope were reduced to a mere coat of arms and fancy mitre, and I can see no case in which a council should override an Ex Cathedra proclamation.  I believe in metaphysical consequence to the point that if a bad pope is elected, God would prevent him from doing anything stupid.

So, my take on the article is that the papacy of JPII was quite conciliar enough, and it's too early to tell about Ben.  However, the groups who formulated this opinion see the papacy as obsolete, and from that angle they want to bastardize it to the point that it "makes sense" to them.  I'm not saying they aren't extremely well-educated, but they're simply trapped in the sola gratia superstructure.
[right][snapback]741836[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Well spoken, and I'm not Catholic ethier. thinking about it though.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

When will liberal American theologians realize that nobody in Rome even knows who they are and wouldn't care to read their stuff anyway? The only response I've ever seen to this stuff is when Benedict removed the editor of America magazine.

[Norseman82]

If by "conciliarism" they mean the bishops, I don't see any tyranny by the Pope over the bishops, since the Pope and bishops have been speaking in one voice.

If by conciliarism they mean giving the ordinary laypeople the power to change matters of faith and morals....fuhgedaboutit!!!!!!

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Sep 30 2005, 08:02 PM']fuhgedaboutit!!!!!!
[right][snapback]742589[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Quoted for truth.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Jiggle Billy' date='Sep 30 2005, 04:30 PM']So, what's your plan?  "Hey idiots!  You need to forget about your 500 years of culture because you are wrong, wrong, wrong!  : "  But seriously, Protestants probably won't be interested in joining the dialog if the only possible outcome is their total assimilation.
[right][snapback]742343[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
what does culture have to do with it? Theology is the problem. If elements of Protestant culture are in conflict with the Church then they will have to go or be reinterpreted.
What other outcome is there? Either the Protestants are assimilated or the Catholics dissolve into relativist goo.

[Sinner]

Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......Crappity carp carp carp......

[son_of_angels]

I will admit, it is my opinion that converted Protestants should not have to be completely assilimated into a Roman notion of ritual, etc. Instead the Anglican Use liturgy should become the norm for ALL converting Protestants, and also be given a hierarchy so that, sui juris, all converts from Protestantism fall under its Rite (or at least make that an option).

Personally, as a convert myself from Protestantism, I would choose to be Roman before anything else, but there you go....

By the way, I don't think most Protestants who are inclined to convert have much of a problem with the Pope being pretty much in charge of things, at least everyone that I've met doesn't.

[Thumper]

Um . . . anybody notice that the folks in the article were responding to an invitation from JPII?

"The ecumenical scholars were responding to the 1995 invitation of the late Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical on Christian unity, asking church leaders and theologians to "engage in a patient and fraternal dialogue" about new ways papal primacy could be exercised that would make the pope's ministry more effective in advancing Christian unity."

It's not like they were just going off all gung-ho and offering unsolicited advice about the papacy.

Now, you might not agree with their conclusions, or that this is the final form such conclusions should take. However, they are at least taking JPII up on his offer, and I think he would have liked us join in the dialogue patiently and fraternally as well.