Pope Francis is the most post-Vatican II authoritarian pope we've had. Even His Holiness' desire that power be shifted away from the Curia to bishops and bishops' conferences, is an act of an authoritarian pope.
I don't know how the curia worked prior to Vatican II but I doubt that they wheeled as much authority as they have since Vatican II. Others might want to comment on this.
Orthodox or traditional Catholics should applaud the restoration of papal supremacy for it is the most orthodox of teachings concerning the Supreme Pontiff in the Church:
Referring to the doctrine of Papal Supremacy the Catechism notes in paragraph 882, “the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." Paragraph 937 states, “"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.'” (This is to be distinguished from the Infallibility, which is a supernatural gift whereby the recipient is shielded from teaching error as it pertains to the faith handed down to us by Christ). Before we examine some of the Biblical texts that reveal this supremacy, we need to point out that the Church, the family of God, is among other things a divinely ordained society and as in all societies there must be an authority whose word is final if chaos is to be avoided. The Jews, for example, had patriarchs, judges and the then kings as well as prophets. Other societies have authorities that govern have prime ministers, kings and presidents. Thus, ordinary human experience shows that the need for authority is primary, which is demonstrated by the fact that the “justification for the existence of authority is not that it works perfectly [for the authorities are sinners like us] or that it never makes mistakes, but simply the rule, ‘no authority, no society.’”
We should 100% support papal supremacy no matter the pope. It is a defined doctrine to say the least.
What this will do in the future is to assure that popes can undo what a predecessor has accomplished as Pope Francis has done since the moment of His Holiness election. No longer will popes need to respect what another pope had set into action or the direction for the Church he has initiated.
Even progressive or heterodox Catholics are pleased with the restoration of papal supremacy under Pope Francis. We should join them and be united with them in upholding this important Catholic doctrine.
The following comments from Praytell sum up my concern. When we complain about papal supremacy we become like heterodox Catholics who pick and choose which pope they will adore based upon cafeteria Catholicism.
Orthodox Catholics cannot be cafeteria Catholics adoring popes we like and choosing not to follow popes we don't like, like the progressives do.
Praytell comments:
Earnie Bay says:
It really seems as though Cardinal Sarah is getting the same
treatment as the other Cardinals who have dared to question Pope
Francis… the Holy Father appears to have as much need for a prefect of
the CDW as he had for the one at the CDF or of the Signatura. One
wonders if Cdl. Sarah will have the good grace to resign forthwith… or
whether the Pope will sack him, or leave him marginalized (on the
periphery?), twisting slowly in the ‘vento Romano’… so much for
“dialogue”!
Meanwhile there is “the dog that did not bark” in the persons of all of those who were so vocal in their criticisms of Pope Benedict for “not being a ‘liturgist’ ” despite his obvious knowledge of and love for the liturgy… his successor on the Throne of Peter makes no pretense to either and yet not a peep from the liturgical establishment about his qualifications or motivations.
Does he bear any responsibility for any of the present disquiet in the Church?
Meanwhile there is “the dog that did not bark” in the persons of all of those who were so vocal in their criticisms of Pope Benedict for “not being a ‘liturgist’ ” despite his obvious knowledge of and love for the liturgy… his successor on the Throne of Peter makes no pretense to either and yet not a peep from the liturgical establishment about his qualifications or motivations.
Does he bear any responsibility for any of the present disquiet in the Church?
I can only speak for myself, but I support Pope Francis because,
quite apart from whether he’s bothered with the writings of the
liturgical establishment, he “gets” the liturgy like very few people I
know – including me, to be honest.
The liturgy isn’t about liturgy. Nor is it about music – including the organ music and Latin chant and choral music I so dearly love. Nor is it about sacramental theology. Nor is it about building up the Church. (Those things all have their place, of course.)
The liturgy is about the Reign of God. This is the central preoccupation of all Jesus’ teaching and healing. This is to be the central concern of all of us, as we work for the transformation of the entire world into which the Reign of God is breaking.
It seems to me that Pope Francis gets this. In that sense, he’s the most liturgical of popes!
awr
The liturgy isn’t about liturgy. Nor is it about music – including the organ music and Latin chant and choral music I so dearly love. Nor is it about sacramental theology. Nor is it about building up the Church. (Those things all have their place, of course.)
The liturgy is about the Reign of God. This is the central preoccupation of all Jesus’ teaching and healing. This is to be the central concern of all of us, as we work for the transformation of the entire world into which the Reign of God is breaking.
It seems to me that Pope Francis gets this. In that sense, he’s the most liturgical of popes!
awr
Earnie Bay says:
Well, I guess that’s a point of view… I’m trying very hard to
support Pope Francis myself but the whole package is very worrisome to
me, and the apparent slapdown of Cdl. Sarah continues in the same vein:
“Dialogue… but if I don’t like what you’re saying I’ll freeze you out”.
“Mercy… but not for those who disagree with my novelties”. Canonize
one predecessor and praise another, but oppose their magisterium as no
pope in living memory has done… but I guess it’s OK if one agrees with
the results. There are many Americans who feel the same way about their
president…
Wait a minute, Earnie. I think you are misunderstanding some of the essential facts that are relevant here.
The situation with Sarah is not about dialogue. It’s Sarah’s job to present fairly what the Pope has said in his motu proprio, and to interpret it correctly so that others can understand it according to what Pope Francis actually said and intended. Sarah didn’t do this, so Francis corrected him. Sarah is not appointed to rule on liturgical questions his own, or to advance his personal opinions if they are opposed to the Pope’s. He is appointed as part of the Pope’s cabinet to assist the Pope. How can he do this if he misrepresents the Pope?
As for “novelties,” the Pope has explained (with chapter and verse) where and how his decision is based in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It’s simply not a novelty. If anything was a novelty it was having the CDW micromanage the translation process, as Liturgiam authenticam directed. Same goes for what you are concerned about, re: the magisterium of his predecessors. I think you are underestimating the continuity between Francis and his predecessors, which is considerable. No pope is expected to be a carbon copy of the one before him.
I wonder if you have absorbed some false impressions about what Francis is actually doing, and this is causing you to be concerned.
The situation with Sarah is not about dialogue. It’s Sarah’s job to present fairly what the Pope has said in his motu proprio, and to interpret it correctly so that others can understand it according to what Pope Francis actually said and intended. Sarah didn’t do this, so Francis corrected him. Sarah is not appointed to rule on liturgical questions his own, or to advance his personal opinions if they are opposed to the Pope’s. He is appointed as part of the Pope’s cabinet to assist the Pope. How can he do this if he misrepresents the Pope?
As for “novelties,” the Pope has explained (with chapter and verse) where and how his decision is based in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It’s simply not a novelty. If anything was a novelty it was having the CDW micromanage the translation process, as Liturgiam authenticam directed. Same goes for what you are concerned about, re: the magisterium of his predecessors. I think you are underestimating the continuity between Francis and his predecessors, which is considerable. No pope is expected to be a carbon copy of the one before him.
I wonder if you have absorbed some false impressions about what Francis is actually doing, and this is causing you to be concerned.
