For some years now, Andrea Gagliarducci has issued a weekly news/analysis column called Monday Vatican. This week is a must read. HERE
Excerpts…
Pope Francis and the paradox of the Council
[…]
Pope Francis wants to be the Pope who puts the Council into practice.
[…]
For [secretary of the Council of Cardinals, Bp Marco] Mellino, the fact that the laity can cooperate in government means they can take part in the government that the bishops take part in by vocation.
This interpretation is widely contested. Before the Consistory, interventions on the subject by cardinals Antonio Rouco Varela, Marc Ouellet, and even Walter Kasper had been disseminated. Everyone questioned that this decision to centralize everything in the hands of the Pope ultimately, even the distribution of power, was in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.
Even the historian Alberto Melloni had denounced the anti-conciliar turn of Pope Francis, who, instead of delegating, increasingly centers his powers on himself.
[…]
[I]t was the Second Vatican Council that, intending to return to the sacramental nature of the Church, defined that the sacred powers of the bishops, even before being jurisdictional, concerned not only those of sanctifying and teaching but also that of governing.
[…]
Also, this is paradoxical if we consider that Pope Francis wants to link everything to the correct reception of the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, the Pope is particularly ferocious on these issues, especially regarding the liturgy.
The Traditionis Custodes, which cancels all the concessions made on the celebration of the ancient rite, was justified by the Pope as the need to apply the Council, and with the emphasis that the Council must be received in every part because it is the life of the Church.
If this is the way of thinking, what is one to think of the consequences of the Praedicate Evangelium? Can’t the Constitution itself jeopardize the reception of the Council?
It may be easy to argue that liturgy and government are very different issues. But however different they are, the underlying principle remains the same. In the end, there is a contradiction.
This contradiction, after all, pervades many actions of Pope Francis’ pontificate. There is an impulsive Pope and a less impulsive Pope, like two sides of the same coin, which create a fluid and bipolar pontificate and, therefore, one difficult to interpret.
[…]
Now, the Second Vatican Council is the guideline of every inspection, every provision, even harsh ones by the Pope. Yet it is profoundly questioned on one of its foundations by an apostolic constitution written “by trial and error,” and with the awareness that it will have to be substantially amended.
Meanwhile, Pope Francis has decided to bring his cardinals together to present them with a fait accompli.
[…]
The Consistory, after all, was a “noncistory.” It is a college that seems more to be an electoral committee than an actual advisory body of the Pope, though many said that the discussion in the groups were lively and free and that nobody felt pressures. Indeed, there is almost a fear of speaking openly.
[…]