The Reform Traditionalists Want?

Begun on February 25, 2013.

A post at the Orthosphere refers to this articlet by Christopher Ferrara from last year: The Legislating Church: ‘Vatileaks’ and Other Iceberg Tips.

Is not the Roman Curia not a part of the administration of the papacy itself? How can one decry "the legislating Church" that devastated changed the Roman rite, if it had not received the power to do so from the pope in the first place? We cannot say papal authority has been usurped, as it has been delegated "properly."

Mr. Ferrara outlines the changes in the Roman Curia and the great power that was accorded to the Secretary of State:

In 1967-68, under the authority of Pope Paul’s apostolic constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae, the Curia underwent a dramatic restructuring designed and implemented by then Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Jean-Marie Villot, another suspected Mason. The aim was to eliminate, as much possible, what we are now told is the old “monarchical model” of the Church in favor of the new “model” of collegiality. Before the Council, the Curia was indeed structured along monarchical lines. The Pope was Prefect of the Holy Office, to which all other Vatican dicasteries were subordinated, while the Cardinal in charge of the day-to-day business of the Holy Office was the Pro-Prefect, reporting directly and only to the Pope. The Pope, as Vicar Christ on earth, was thus at the head of a chain of command over which he wielded his authority directly or through the Holy Office.

Under the “reform” engineered and carried out by Villot, however, the Holy Office was renamed, becoming the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)—the name “Holy Office” being far too old-fashioned for the Church’s “new orientation” after the Council. The Cardinal Secretary of State was placed above all the Vatican dicasteries, including the CDF. Worse, the Pope was no longer Prefect of the former Holy Office, which (as the CDF) would now be under a Cardinal Prefect organizationally subordinated to the Secretary of State. In short, Paul VI “enhanced the powers of the Secretary [of State], placing him over all the other departments of the Roman Curia.” (Cf. “Cardinal Secretary of State,” http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Cardinal_Secretary_of_State).

Since the Council the Vatican Secretary of State has been constituted a kind of Vicar of the Vicar of Christ, with a resulting functional detachment of the new Legislating Church from direct papal control. This decidedly unfavorable development was only exacerbated by John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus...

Apparently traditionalists like Mr. Ferrera want a purified or restored monarchical papacy and a reconstituting of the various offices of the Curia. The [post-conciliar] preference for "collegiality" gets the blame for the shift in power:

Today it appears that the Vicar of Christ has become a captive of the democratization of the Church according to a model of “collegiality” that purports to replace the monarchy which the papacy established by Christ the King really is. It seems that the Pope views himself as but a cog, albeit the biggest and most important cog, in the vast clockwork of a Legislating Church whose “decisions” must be allowed to operate autonomously and by consent of the governed in keeping with the collegial and democratic mechanisms of the new model. No longer seeing himself as a monarch with the prerogatives and peremptory authority of a monarch, the Pope of the Legislating Church feels constrained to rely on mere suasion and appeals to procedural due process in the hope of effectuating what he wishes to see done.

But would such ecclesiastical micromanaging desirable, even if possible? (And I do not think that it is possible.) Maybe the pope could better curb the bureaucrats and exercise greater oversight. Or we could reconsider the nature of the pope's authority and the limits to his powers, relating this to the structure of the Roman curia and its necessity.

Collegiality does not refer to the bureaucracy, but to all of the bishops, working together for the good of the Church. Small wonder that the Orthodox are concerned about the pope being a "super bishop," when traditionalist Catholics are holding on to this understanding of the papacy.

What would traditionalists recommend be done about "rogue" or "errant" bishops? How are they to be handled or disciplined? The inaction of John Paul II (and now Benedict XVI?) with respect to heterodox bishops and the like had been defended on the grounds that it was feared schism might result. But have they (and those attached to them) already cut themselves off the Church if they have knowingly rejected the Church's teaching in favor of their own opinion? What about incompetent bishops?

(Again, the question of who has control over Church property, especially here in the United States.)

Instead of acquiescing in the decision of some bishops to permit altar girls, what could the pope (or the curia) have done instead? This action pertains to "discipline" and not to the teaching of faith and morals... (Though it arguably pertains to the [practical] observance of faith and morals.) Would it have been better to be firm on this point and let he laity be exposed to the scandal of bishops and priests who are in disobedience? Was this a "hill" that the pope did not want to die on? Or was it necessary to give the image of a "united" Church?

What is to be done about the "patriarchate of the West"?