Is Rome heading for a split. . .

On the one hand, we have witnessed priests and bishops in Germany brazenly and openly violating the rules in blessing same sex couples, the move toward Synodality in which a democratized Rome and papacy would yield to the local circumstance, and the surrender of autonomy of Roman Catholics in China to the Chinese Communist regime.  On the other hand, we have open antagonism against more discipline over who communes (especially with respect to politicians and abortion), the crack down of episcopal oversight over priests who do not go along and get along, and now the rumors that Pope Francis will pretty much rescind Benedict XVI’s 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum that made the (Latin Mass) Extraordinary Form widely available.   Not to mention his constant scolding of rigid priests.

The Pope seems to have chosen sides but sits precariously in a position of restraint against the more liberal and progressive forces within Rome.  On the other hand, can he or would he slap the face of Benedict XVI while he still lives?  And what will happen if he continues to sit on the fence toward the modernists while fencing in the traddies?  This is especially interesting because the growth and vitality of the Roman Catholic Church and the more vibrant mass attendance come not from those German style liberals but from the more traditional side.  If chaos and confusion are his goals, he has done extraordinarily well.  If building up the faith is his goal, he has done little to encourage the growth of faith or piety.

Rome has been sitting on the fence with two churches for some time.  On the one hand are the liberal or progressive folks who want a disconnect with Rome's past, a rewriting of Rome's doctrine, a distancing of Rome from the Scriptures, and an embrace of culture.  The churches that have adopted these measures, however, are weak and empty.  On the other hand, there are those who outwardly reject Vatican II and its openness and especially the reforms of the mass that represent a hermeneutic of discontinuity.  The churches that lean this direction do better at recruiting priests, filling churches, and promoting obedience to the faith.

Is this a boomer style split or is there something more?  Is this only the aging liberals making a last stand before a more conservative younger generation takes over?  Is this the beginning of the end of the vaunted unity of Rome behind the Pope and the splintering of Rome into more localized regional and geographical divisions -- with more autonomy over faith and worship?  Who can tell?  Who cares?  Well, you better care.  Rome is a big ship with a mighty wake.  Its weakness is a foreboding sign for orthodox Christianity everywhere and if it succumbs to the dark side of progressive theology and liberal practice, it only isolates orthodox Christianity even further.

So, Lutherans, beware.  Watch.  Listen.  What happens in Rome may well affect us sooner rather than later.  After all, when Rome catches a cold, Lutherans sneeze -- as the saying goes.

Rome is still the center of church history. Hermann Sasse. 

 

We begin with a glance at the Roman Church. Whether we like it or not, Rome is still the center of church history. When all of Evanston’s papers and conclusions have long been forgotten—and they are really already today as good as forgotten—, the big announcements and decisions of the “Marian Year” will live on. This is not only because the Roman Church is still the largest in Christendom, it is not only because of its political power and its organization, as one all-too-easily supposes. Without a doubt, it is also because it has both intellectual and spiritual powers which are missing in other parts of Christendom. Rome does not live by its errors, but rather it lives despite its errors from the Christian substance, which even under the cover of heresy and heathenism still lives in hiding. Whatever one may say against the Roman sacramental system and praxis—and we agree fully with what the Lutheran confession says against them—this church really has at least still kept Christ’s sacraments, which one can no longer say about a large segment of Protestantism. And with the sacrament, it has kept something of the true gospel, if indeed Luther was correct, when he said about the Lord’s Supper: “the sacrament is the gospel.” Even if, in the concept of the sacrifice of the mass, the human puts himself on a par with Christ, so the Roman Church has really never forgotten that the sacrifice of Golgatha is the foundation of our redemption. How the Protestants must be ashamed, who have left to Rome the foundational truths of the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, and thereby the truths, which were never contested by any of the reformers and on which the Reformation was founded! What right do Lutheran bishops, who say nothing against it when the Christmas narrative is “de-mythologized” in their churches and seminaries and when the [phrase] “born of the virgin Mary” is denied, have to complain about certain outgrowths of the Marian cult? Only he, who stands firmly on the ground of the Reformation, only he, for whom God’s Word is the holy Scripture, who believes in the God-man Jesus Christ and in the real presence of His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, only he has the right to speak with the Roman Church, to direct questions toward Roman theology—the questions which once the Reformation put to it.

 

Sasse, Post Festum, 1954.