tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post8085689308326228953..comments2024-01-22T01:52:37.473-06:00Comments on RENEGADE TRADS: The Last Renaissance CourtA Sinnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-12905782189887300522010-05-14T19:08:31.640-05:002010-05-14T19:08:31.640-05:00"Getting rid of the papal tiara and all the c..."Getting rid of the papal tiara and all the ceremony of the Papal Court...just makes the bureaucracy less whimsical"<br /><br />ha! exactly. they should have worked on actually introducing democratization and accountability, not making the appearances less romantic. now its the worst of both worlds: ugly and corrupt.<br /><br />in terms of 'pressuring' the pope to submit to some limits, even if he theoretically doesnt have them, i think sortacatholic is onto something with the 'pursestrings' idea. <br /><br />it wouldnt have to be a body of bishops, but catholics are never going to submit to a mandatory tithe again, even if a pope did try to require it. <br /><br />withholding donations is thus a powerful tool. and that could include not just individuals, but how much dioceses chose to give the vatican each year, perhaps instead of peters pence directly going to it. <br /><br />bishops could express dissatisfaction with the vatican by not giving money. if the pope tried to 'order' him, the bishop could simply order his people not to donate that year, and its hard to try to force a whole group of people to give when they dont want to and are not legally bound to. even if you do invoke 'pain of sin' many people just wouldnt buy that.Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-34669096584789984452010-05-14T10:15:00.700-05:002010-05-14T10:15:00.700-05:00"Pope Paul VI successfully transitioned the p..."Pope Paul VI successfully transitioned the papacy from a temporal kingdom to a spiritual see during Vatican II."<br /><br />True. Though I have to question how much changing externals is really necessary.<br /><br />As the Novus Ordo shows, just making a more "progressive/modern" liturgy...doesn't actually make the INSTITUTIONAL structures any less feudal or authoritarian.<br /><br />Getting rid of the papal tiara and all the ceremony of the Papal Court...just makes the bureaucracy less whimsical, more mundane. It doesn't actually solve ANY of the intra-institutional political issues.<br /><br />I think the British monarchy has struck a nice balance; keeping all the traditional ceremony and costume and rank, etc...without actually letting that represent any real practical political power.<br /><br />I'd restore many features of the Papal Household and stuff for traditional ceremony's sake. I just wouldn't let them actually affect the politics of the Vatican.<br /><br />"A lower 'House of Bishops' should be elected by the entire episcopate. This body would serve as the House of Commons to the Curial House of Lords. Direct election among bishops is possible in the Internet age. Episcopal legislators would reside in Rome for their term."<br /><br />I don't know if it's really necessary to have a standing body or for the "legislators" to reside in Rome full time. This isn't Congress or Parliament...there frankly aren't that many issues to decide day to day. They could be Ordinaries of dioceses AND vote in a council or synod from time to time.<br /><br />I think you might find satisfying the Synod model that Eastern churches use. Rome, after Vatican II, has tried to be more "collegial" by calling an occasional Synod...but the results have been unsatisfying.<br /><br />I say look to the East.<br /><br />"The Pope would have no veto over money bills."<br /><br />The problem is...there is no way to actually limit him except by his own consent. He could simply change this structure any time he wanted. <br /><br />Still, he could be PRESSURED to consent to something like this. For example, if the Orthodox ever reunite, the Pope isn't going to DARE meddle in the internal affairs of the East, even if he theoretically "could"...<br /><br />Look to the Synods of the East for a balanced view.<br /><br />You don't want to fall into the heresy of Conciliarism whereby a Council can over-rule a Pope or whereby a standing Council is established.A Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-25233945476854100112010-05-14T08:16:16.375-05:002010-05-14T08:16:16.375-05:00I'm going to take the reforms of the America e...I'm going to take the reforms of the <i>America</i> editors a few steps further. Term limits alone won't stem the issue of favoritism. There needs to be more checks and balances in Vatican administration.<br /><br />Certainly the Curia should have term limits. I'd grant one optional one to two year term extension for curial officials during "interregnum". Any member of the episcopate could serve in the Curia, not just cardinals. <br /><br />Pope Paul VI successfully transitioned the papacy from a temporal kingdom to a spiritual see during Vatican II. The next step is the reform of the papal court into a quasi-constitutional monarchy. In brief, this is how it could work.<br /><br />The Pope would hold a role similar to a modern European monarch, albeit with a greater degree of executive power since the Vatican is not a democracy. Spiritually his role would not change. He could still invoke infallibility, author encyclicals and <i>motu proprio</i>, and call and dissolve councils. He would maintain his titles. <br /><br />A lower "House of Bishops" should be elected by the entire episcopate. This body would serve as the House of Commons to the Curial House of Lords. Direct election among bishops is possible in the Internet age. Episcopal legislators would reside in Rome for their term. <br /> <br />The Pope would lose some control of the Curia in two respects: money bills and absolute power over Curial appointments. All money bills would be in the hands of the lower house in consultation with the Curia. The Pope would have no veto over money bills. The lower house could veto Curial appointments for just cause, i.e. the appointment committed a legal crime or failed to administrate a diocese justly. The Pope could petition the lower house to extend a Curial term, but his petition could be refused. Like the House of Lords, the Pope and Curia would have only two vetoes against the lower house. <br /><br />Every year the Pope would offer a throne speech to a joint session of the House of Bishops and the Curia. Similar to Parliament, the throne speech will be authored jointly by the two houses and will outline the administrative goals of the year. The Papal throne speech will be televised live.<br /><br />Sorry for the length. I'm going to get a lot of flak for this opinion. But a reform like this is desperately needed.sortacatholicnoreply@blogger.com