Posted on 05/14/2005 9:29:13 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
May 5, 2005
Ratzinger advocated breaking up the Latin Patriarchate
...Joseph Ratzinger, for example, pointed out the need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of “patriarchal areas,” that is, regions with an autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the episcopal conferences.
In an essay entitled “Primacy and Episcopacy,” Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:
The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom.
The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman center: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close union of the two offices. For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church.
To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communio, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form.
— Jacobse
(Excerpt) Read more at orthodoxytoday.org ...
There's plenty of links off of this that are even more interesting. I think it has huge implications. What say ye, Men of the West? (What say ye, Men of the East? Women? North? South? Anyone?)
If His Holiness wants to re-re model after the East, what will the role of the Laity be?
I think the Laity plays a pretty big role in the autocephalous model, that's how the big dogs are kept in check, I believe. And the reason the Orthodox are successful is because the Laity is high-claiber in that they willingly embrace and protect Tradition.
How will that ever be the case (at least in the forseeable future) for the RC Laity?
To talk about things as a theologian, theorizing and considering options, is often a different reality than actually having the job and running things. It will be interesting to see how his speculations as theologian are deemed doable by him now that he has the job!
How will that ever be the case (at least in the forseeable future) for the RC Laity?
Oh, we've got a respectable percentage of (Traditional) active ingredients...
But what you say is interesting. Want to make us some practical suggestions?
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Thanks for the ping.
That word, 'communio,' will be a focus of this Papacy.
Maybe you do, and God bless you for that. But here in the diocese of Rochester, the same can't even remotely be said.
But what you say is interesting. Want to make us some practical suggestions?
Don't have much. Think that a page should be taken from the Orthodox in how they've achieved that, initally at least from a structural point of view.
Perhaps the reason the Orthodox Laity is more inclined to embrace and protect Tradition, is that Tradition isn't as rigidly defined. It's tied into the process of becoming, day by day more perfect, like Our Father in Heaven, as our Lord commanded.
It's a mentality that I think is at variance with the RC mentality. I'm not saying it's an impossible obstacle, but that it is integral to the differences.
A start would be to segregate them out into:
Latin (Spanish/French/Portugese/Italian areas)
Africa
English
Germanic
Slavic/Hungarian
Asian
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote Primat und Episkopat in 1969.
Perhaps he has changed his thinking since then.
ping
The Orthodox have that structure, and they bicker back and forth and have different rules depending on which patriarchy you would find yourself in.
Can't you just see this? It would make things much worse for catholics. One diocese would decide this, another that, which is already the case even worse than before.
There is so much instability right now. It would be a grand concession to the Orthodox, but it could throw catholicism around the world into total chaos.
The only thing that is holding the church together, for better or for worse, doctrinally is Rome, and only Rome has been able to have any affect on some of the liturgical abuses and little effect on some of the other problems as things stand now.
If all the bishops get together regularly and agree to the letter, I would be ok with it. That ain't likely to happen.
I wouldn't put it past some bishops to allow kool aid and dog biscuits.
I see your point. Seeing the USCCB as a model for a patriarchate strikes me a stupefyingly wrongheaded. (Not that that's what Benedetto would do: we have yet to see.)
On the other hand, for say 1200 years the West has conflated the roles of Pope and Patriarch of the West (historically almost inevitable at the time: the Age of Barbarian Invasions and all), but that led to a frankly ugly policy of in effect demanding that the churches of the East abandon/compromise all their holy traditions to become Latin/Western. This is spiritual oppression and a terrible injustice.
Think of India: a billion people. Think of China: a billion people. If there's ever an evangelizing wave sweeps over those two nations, is there a snowball's chance they could be "managed" from a central administration in Rome, let alone drawn into an essentially European religious culture?
SHOULD they be?
I dunno. An "English-speaking" Patriarchate sounds way too vulnerable to USCCBaloney; an Asian one sounds almost essential for global evangelization.
Thank you posting that information. It was the first question that came to my mind.
Obviously, it is very practical, given the first part of your next statement and the fact that we are liturgically and theologically stable.
"The Orthodox have that structure, and they bicker back and forth and have different rules depending on which patriarchy you would find yourself in."
I will be the last to deny that Orthodox are prone to bickering about things, but as our priest has said, we're so busy arguing over how many sitchera to sing at "Lord, I have cried..." at Vespers that we'll never get far enough down the list to get to gay marriage and women priests. I have spoken before of the "peer pressure" within Orthodoxy to keep the traditions of the Church: pressure of laity on clergy, pressure of clergy on bishops, bishops on each other, etc...
It really is true. For us, tradition is a very living thing, but the movement is always one of moving forward by continually returning to traditional roots.
"There is so much instability right now. It would be a grand concession to the Orthodox, but it could throw catholicism around the world into total chaos."
I'd be surprised if then Cardinal Ratzinger was viewing this as merely a concession to the Orthodox. He seems rather in his statements to indicate that he first and foremost thinks it would be healthy for the West itself.
I think that there is a lot of truth to the statement that it could lead to chaos right now, and AlbionGirl's comments on the condition of her diocese backs that up. My own observations of the RC dioceses in some of the places where I have lived are that things would really spin out of control with any kind of autonomy.
But that doesn't make the centralized, top-down structure of Roman Catholicism healthy. My own opinion is that it is this centralization that allowed the current rot. The lack of a sense on the part of the vast majority Roman Catholics that they personally were responsible for defending the faith, even against their own bishops and Popes, was devastating. I have often quoted this from then Cardinal Ratzinger, who seems to understand this:
After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.
This is important from an Orthodox perspective, because the liturgical services of the Church are a primary means of shaping our faith and morals. Change the Liturgy, and one changes the faith -- at least eventually. In the RC church, the Liturgy has not played this role to such an extensive degree, and instead has relied heavily on the formal teachings and declarations of the Magesterium.
What the modern Roman church is discovering, however, is that the Vatican can talk until it is blue in the face about the teachings of the Magesterium, but if it is not backed up by liturgical life, it simply doesn't stick. The people in America poured out to big stadiums to treat JPII like a rock star, but they roundly ignored what he had to say on moral matters, if polling data is to be believed.
B16 would seem to understand that his church needs to reconnect with the ancient tradition (and his writings indicate that the Tridentine church was every bit as much in need of such a reconnection and reform as is the church of today -- just in different ways.)
It would very much surprise me if B16 began the (certainly needed) process of decentralization without linking it to a process of intensive catechesis, and more importantly, to the process of recognizing and reinforcing the importance of those laity who are promoting *the right kinds* of reforms. JPII seemed to be just as harsh on laity who challenged the actions (or inactions) of the Vaticans based on tradition as he was on those who challenged him because they didn't believe the teachings of Christianity. The fact of disobedience or dissent was more important than what the dissention was about.
This sort of dissent happens all the time in Orthodox churches -- laity challenging and arguing (usually respectfully) with their priests and bishops. While no-one in authority likes to be challenged, most clergy respond by listening carefully and being open to the fact that maybe a pious layman or a non-ordained monastic (the vast majority of our monastics are non-ordained) is more connected with the living tradition of the Church than is he, on a given point. If the person presenting the dissent, however, is basing what he has to say on something besides the tradition of the Church -- well, the priest usually either smiles and nods and ignores, or simply sets the person straight.
The optimum outcome: We become like the Orthodox
The likely outcome: We become like the Anglican Communion.
Thanks for the information. I wondered how long ago he had written this.
Re: Cardinal Ratzinger wrote Primat und Episkopat in 1969
My thinking has certainly "evolved" since 1969 when I was a senior in high school. What a difference thirty six years makes.
Lord help me if someone wants to hold me to some of the ideas I had back then.
I'll second everything that Agrarian has said with just a couple of observations. First, I would think that instead of Patriarchies, you'd have Eparchies of the Throne of +Peter, headed by a Cardinal Archbishop appointed by Rome and administered by an Eparchial Synod of some sort, probably made up of Metropolitans but perhaps all the bishops would be in it. That might get awfully large and cumbersome, though. My big fear would be that since the Roman Catholic laity has had no role to speak of beyond "pay, pray and obey" in the Church for 1000 years or more, especially such a role as would make it natural for them to act as the watch dogs of the orthodoxy of the hierarchs, heresy would crop up and firmly root itself very quickly. Your laity, as a general rule, wouldn't know heresy or the near occasion of the same if it hit them in the face, which it is every week in some dioceses, and even when they do see it, they don't seem to care. Rome has shown itself reluctant to remove unorthodox people like +Mahoney even under the present system. Under even what I have suggested, let alone under separate Patriarchates, removal might be even harder and less likely to happen. Someone or some position like a Grand Inquisitor (seriously, ninenot, with all due respect!) would have to be established to assure orthodoxy in the absence of the peer pressure which the 1800 year old Orthodox system generally insures. What would your liberal fellow communicants think of that? Frankly, though such a system looks great at first glance, it wouldn't work for the Roman Church and it would be very, very bad for any hope of improved relations with Orthodoxy. Who would we talk to? It will take a couple of hundred years of catechesis and at least a few major schisms in the Western Church before it will be ready for an Orthodox type system. I have great confidence in +Benedict XVI; I think most Orthodox who have noticed do too, but this is just a bad idea whose time has definitely not come.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.