Reforming the Vatican? What do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,522
55,220
Woods
✟4,586,217.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you could reform the Vatican, what would you do?

Reforming the Vatican

What the Church Can Learn from Other Institutions


Thomas J. Reese, SJ


Too often when someone proposes the reform of church structures, the reformer is attacked for borrowing from the secular political field, as if this were necessarily a bad thing. But throughout history the Vatican has often imitated the organization of secular political institutions. Today the governance of the church is more centralized than at any time in its history. To make the church more collegial, the Vatican should once again adopt practices of the secular political world.

When St. Peter arrived in Rome, he did not immediately appoint cardinals and set up the offices that we see in the Vatican today. He had only a secretary to help him with his correspondence. In early centuries, the bishop of Rome had helpers much like those of any other bishop: priests for house-churches, deacons for charitable assistance and catechesis, and notaries or secretaries for correspondence and record keeping.

Continued- http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2200
 

Scott1

God is Love
Aug 20, 2007
38
5
Chicopee MA
✟15,178.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Expanding the policy of collegiality is one of the Vatican II priorities that the Church has ignored the most, and so obviously the article is correct, and that is an area that is most in need of change.
I agree...

I reccomend reading the wonderful article from Cardinal Kasper "On the Church."
 
Upvote 0

JoabAnias

Steward of proportionality- I Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 3:15
Supporter
Nov 26, 2007
21,200
3,283
✟82,874.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Expanding the policy of collegiality is one of the Vatican II priorities that the Church has ignored the most, and so obviously the article is correct, and that is an area that is most in need of change.

Interesting, I see just the opposite about ecumenism and expansion of collegiality. Sure more can always be done and it will be. We should realize though that more has been done since John XXIII than in all the time combined since Trent. Largely in part to modern communications and transportation.

One thing they could do (which they are slowly) is more communications with the rest of the world. I would like to see web-cams all over Rome for instance and all Bishops conferences televised and linked with Rome and other councils throughout the world via satellite in real time as well as all the archives available on-line. Autocephaly needs to become a thing of the past. There is no need for it and its no longer practically necessary. Though culturally it probably will be a while yet.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

QuantaCura

Rejoice always.
Aug 17, 2005
9,164
958
42
✟21,762.00
Faith
Catholic
As defined by the Second Vatican Council, the college is a body subject to its head, the Bishop of Rome. This is the immutable doctrine of the Church. The doctrine on the authority of the college is based on the notion of service--bishops should make decisions not just with their own diocese in mind, but must have solicitude for the whole Church. The Second Vatican Council also mandates continued function of the Roman Curia (Christus Dominus). This makes sense since the particular Roman Church is head of all the particular local Churches.

The things that the Second Vatican Council required in regards to the college of bishops acting more as a body were the local conferences and the synod of bishops to advise the Pope. Both these things have been fully implemented. As Cardinal Kasper recently said to the Lambeth conference, the college of bishops is not a Parliament, as Fr. Reese seems to want to make it.

His propositions would obscure the unity of the Church by essentially obscuring the bond between particular Churches and the Roman Pontiff, who the Second Vatican Council calls the "the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful." Coming out of the catacombs and growing throughout history has allowed the Church to manifest her visible unity to a greater and greater degree--and that can continue to grow in light of modern communication and transportation---why set such progress back?

In regards to power, the Pope does very, very few things unilaterally. Most of canon law comes either directly from Councils or from general propositions of Councils as doing things in common is part of the praxis of the Church through time. However, in order to exercise the ministry of unity Christ has entrusted to the head of the college, the Roman Pontiff must have authority and power, or, as John Paul II said in Ut Unum Sint, his ministry would be "illusory."

Finally, the fact that this dissenting media favorite doesn't like how dissenters are treated by the CDF, means the CDF is doing a good job!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JoabAnias
Upvote 0

QuantaCura

Rejoice always.
Aug 17, 2005
9,164
958
42
✟21,762.00
Faith
Catholic
I'd like to learn more about the system used when laity elected their bishops.
It's something I've been meaning to research more but just haven't found the energy.

From what I have read on the subject, the popular vote wasn't the final say, but it was always subject to the decision of other local bishops, the Patriarch, and ultimately the Roman Pontiff. This method itself was not very common--more common was vote to the priests (presbyters) and deacons. However, even in Scripture we see men chosen by the Apostles and then those men are instructed as to how to choose other men (see St. Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus).

Election seems to be a post-Apostolic mode of operation that didn't seem to last very long.
 
Upvote 0

QuantaCura

Rejoice always.
Aug 17, 2005
9,164
958
42
✟21,762.00
Faith
Catholic
I dunno, the Church isn't a democracy and these ideas sound to me just like another Western-centric push to turn everything into a democracy, despite the modern democracy having yet to prove it's long term viability and sustainability.

Exactly. Plus, Christ preached the Kingdom of God, not the democracy of God.

I hope those with such a fixation on democracy (which in and of itself is not a bad thing) will not expect the same from Christ the King when the time comes. If they think the CDF is tough on dissenters....
 
  • Like
Reactions: plainswolf
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tonks

No longer here
Supporter
Aug 15, 2005
21,979
722
Heading home...
✟49,042.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Politics
US-Libertarian
From what I have read on the subject, the popular vote wasn't the final say, but it was always subject to the decision of other local bishops, the Patriarch, and ultimately the Roman Pontiff. This method itself was not very common--more common was vote to the priests (presbyters) and deacons. However, even in Scripture we see men chosen by the Apostles and then those men are instructed as to how to choose other men (see St. Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus).

Election seems to be a post-Apostolic mode of operation that didn't seem to last very long.

I think that operationally it was similar to the way that the Orthodox still operate...priests, deacons etc...plus the general consent of the laity...however that works. However, most of the literature that I've read (which is admittedly small) seems to indicate that the Pope was a rather disinterested party when it came to the elections of local bishops...and was not always "approving" choices. The expansion of papal prorogatives was massive during the 19th century when it comes to getting into the weeds of Church governance. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing I leave up to the historians and theologians. The current MO is rather abberant when the entire history of the Church is looked at, however.

Though I do think that the "democracy" aspects of the article are somewhat stupid. Rome already is a professional bureaucracy by function and tradition...no need to go out of one's way to make it even less effective.
 
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,339
431
20
CA
Visit site
✟28,828.00
Faith
Catholic
I dunno, the Church isn't a democracy and these ideas sound to me just like another Western-centric push to turn everything into a democracy, despite the modern democracy having yet to prove it's long term viability and sustainability.

The absolute monarchy has proven its long term viability and sustainability?
 
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,339
431
20
CA
Visit site
✟28,828.00
Faith
Catholic
From what I have read on the subject, the popular vote wasn't the final say, but it was always subject to the decision of other local bishops, the Patriarch, and ultimately the Roman Pontiff. This method itself was not very common--more common was vote to the priests (presbyters) and deacons. However, even in Scripture we see men chosen by the Apostles and then those men are instructed as to how to choose other men (see St. Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus).

Election seems to be a post-Apostolic mode of operation that didn't seem to last very long.

Ambrose of Milan, elected in 374, ~340 years after Pentecost.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,339
431
20
CA
Visit site
✟28,828.00
Faith
Catholic
yes.

what hasn't proved sustainability is democracy. just look at America for crying out loud.

France - Absolute monarchy began ~1660 with the ascension of Louis XVI, ended ~1790 with the execution of Louis XVI.

Russia - Absolute monarchy began ~1760 with the coup of Catherine the Great, ended with the accommodations following the 1905 Revolution.

United States - Current Constitution adopted in 1787.

America has lasted ~50% longer than the absolute monarchies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fantine
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,337
✟788,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Some structures at the Vatican have changed. It will be interesting over the next two decades to watch one thing. Vatican II called for more collegiality and synodality with the bishops of the world.

Accomplishing this has been regulated various degrees of importance over the years. But it is really moving to the forefront as some ecumenical discussions with our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters require a focus on the role of bishops.

That and some other things has moved it to the forefront recently. This potentially has some very profound effects of the set up of the Curia and the current dicastery systems. And may bring to a head some subtle issues between the Bishops and the Curial structure.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.