I have mentioned a
new kind of ultramonatism I think is at work in the Church; one whereby
anything a Pope says or does is expected to be supported and affirmed simply
because it is the pope saying or doing. As a result, where a Pope appears to be
departing from established doctrine or fails to follow the norms of the
liturgy, no challenge is given and no criticism made “because, well, it’s the
Pope.” This is an excessive ultramonstanism that sees the pope as always and everywhere
above criticism. It is wrong. Not everything a Pope says in his weekly
audiences, his addresses to the Curia or to visiting youth groups or lay groups
etc carries doctrinal infallibility; not everything a Pope does in his
liturgical celebrations sets a universal norm. As Pope Benedict XVI noted
(writing as a private theologian) “The pope’s authority is bound to the
Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. Even the pope can
only be a humble servant of its lawful development. It is not ‘manufactured’ by
the authorities” (Spirit of the Liturgy,
Ignatius Press. p166).
In reality, a Pope
is as bound by defined doctrine as anyone else, and is as obliged as everyone
else to follow the norms of the Missal(s) solemnly promulgated by his
predecessors. His authority is limited to what might be called “being the
Caretaker of the Faith”. Certainly he is able to affirm genuine doctrinal
developments (those in harmony with what has always been believed), and may formally
tinker with the liturgy to ensure the lex
orandi lex credendi where he sees the liturgy insufficiently or erroneously
proclaims the Catholic Faith, but he cannot proclaim his favourite theories to
be new doctrine or impose his liturgical idiosyncrasies on the universal Church.
That would be to see the doctrine of the Faith and the Church in her worship as
his personal property to do with as he will, and I doubt any Pope of sincere
heart would fall to this level of heresy and pride.
That is why,
although many are disturbed by the current Pope’s off-the-cuff comments, we
should have confidence in the forthcoming Synod on the family. It will deliver
no stunning blows to the Catholic world. Indeed it cannot, because the Pope
cannot. We might find we are given new pastoral directives which allow us to
apply the Faith with greater speed or accuracy in difficult situations, but we
will not receive new or contradictory doctrine, nor any new pastoral practices
that fly in the face of defined Doctrine. No pope would want to set himself above
Divine Revelation or the orthopraxis of the centuries, and that includes Pope
Francis. An erroneous understanding of the Faith or a pride beyond telling
would be needed for a pope to fall in such a way. So we should have no fears
about the Synod, only hope; hope that we will be given sound pastoral tools for
assisting those in irregular and difficult situations to live the Faith as best
they can.
If the synod does attempt to change
doctrine in an inauthentic way so as to accommodate contemporary secular
ideologies and social constructions, it’s acts will remain at the level of
‘attempt’, because it can no more change the natural moral law than it can
change the law of gravity. It must also bear in mind that if it attempts such
changes, it is the good name of Pope Francis that will suffer; he will be
viewed by history as a destroyer because Popes are personally charged by the
Lord with the preservation of Tradition, not its destruction:
“For the Holy Spirit
was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might
make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep
and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through
the Apostles.” (Pastor Aeternus, Ch.4, Vatican I)
What if the Synod
does fall into suggesting doctrinal hanges or pastoral practices that play false
to defined doctrine? I can only think that the appropriate response would be to
say, “We obey for the moment, but we do not agree, and we seek a change to
bring us back in line with what has always been believed, and a practice that
is faithful to that belief”. I cannot foresee such a situation coming about.
Christ is in Charge, and the Holy Ghost is at work so that the Holy Church of God will “keep
and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through
the Apostles.”
Thank you Father.Cheers me up somewhat!
ReplyDeleteSandy.
Thank you, Sandy.
DeleteI'm glad you are a cheered a bit! Pope Francis may have said and done things without thinking at times, but surely he is a faithful son of the Church when all come to all.
God Bless.
Don't you think the correct response to doctrinal changes is to disobey?
ReplyDeleteSurely we must obey God not man.
Otherwise a lovely exposition of our situation.
Thank you Paul.
DeleteYes, if we are required to obey what is harmful to souls we have a right -even a duty- to disobey, the old adage being "we must obey our lawful superiors in all things except sin". That said, I don't think Francis is daft or proud enough to lead us down a track that contradicts defined doctrine in either teaching or practice.
Actually, it is hard to 'disobey' doctrine; we can only dispute it; however we can (and should) disobey pastoral practices that play false to defined doctrine: orthopraxis is necessary or we become "the Church that says one thing and does another". Such a thing would display a lack integrity within the Church. I might post something on this at some time.
God Bless.
Father,
ReplyDeleteYes, it is very unlikely that any new doctrine or interpretations thereof will come out of this Synod, which would in any case have no binding authority?
Trouble is a lot of people are expecting change and are going to get very narked if they don’t get it . It’s all very bad management!
I get more and more uncomfortable with this word “pastoral”. If people they can’t cope with Truth then yes, let’s be “nice” in the best sense of that term. That does not mean telling them they can receive Communion in a state of mortal sin. The nicest way to deal with that surely is to tell them not to receive, and yes, by all means go up and have a blessing, so they don’t stand out, etc.
The concept of Spiritual Communion should be more prominent these days.
Thank you, Jacobi.
DeleteI agree with you: 'pastoral' too often means look past the problem'; too many are seeking in inauthentic doctrinal change, management of the situation is poor, and spiritual Communions need to be re=emphasised.
perhaps I would rather folk were more often at Confession before coming to Holy Communion and more attentive to the fast so that not everyone received as if by right; in that way a number would not receive Holy Communion and no one left to stand out, but Communion time id not a time for blessings.
God Bless
A good way to teach Catholics about the proper disposition for receiving Communion would be to put it in the Bulletin every week and make an announcement before every Mass. The priest can also announce that he'll hear confessions before every Mass. Many Catholics just aren't reminded. I've been to Masses where the priest gives a sermon on proper dispositions necessary for Communion and almost always the amount of communicants is markedly less.
ReplyDeleteThank you Justin.
DeleteYou make good points here.
We have recently reminded the parish about the manner of receiving Holy Communion in our Bulletin, and there has been a slight yet noticeable change. We speak about Confession a lot too, and have regular scheduled sessions as well as Confessions on request and by appointment. Sadly, so many clergy are still of the opinion that Confession is only for mortal sins that numbers at Confession remain low.
God Bless
As Cardinal Kaspar has said, 'What would be the point of the Synod if it changes nothing?' He clearly expects changes to 'pastoral practice' to be recommended and to be implemented. One poor Italian priest has already been told off by his bishop and called 'crazy' by a cardinal for confirming the current teaching in the matter of communion for the divorced and 'remarried'. I am not optimistic and fear that this is by way of a 'marker' for more radical changes to come.
ReplyDelete