I read Martin Scicluna’s excellent overview of some of the papacy’s intriguing vicissitudes over the centuries and his comments on the apparent rift in the Church regarding the administration of the Eucharist to divorcees who remarry.

Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster has urged a rethinking of the whole issue, provided that certain appropriate conditions involving ‘public repentance’ are imposed.

Lately, The Tablet reported that three retired bishops expressed their opinion in favour of harnessing back married priests within the ministry.

All these are symptomatic expressions of unease.

Scicluna’s reflections mirror the tribulations that prevailed in the early and late Middle Ages, most notably the turbulent councils of Constance (1414-1418) and Basel-Florence (1431-1445), with three contending claimants to the papacy.

What is so intriguing is how to reconcile some of their deliberations, such as Haec Sancta, Frequens and Quanto Romanus – upholding the supremacy of the councils over the popes – with the decree of infallibility Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I of 1870.

There is much more at stake at the next bishops’ synod than the issue mentioned above about the reception of the Holy Eucharist by remarried divorcees.

The very archaic structure of the Church seems to be the root problem. Is it time to convene a general Church council as suggested by the late Jesuit cardinal, Carlo Maria Martini?

The writing is on the wall. With the intransigence of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and his inability to remain silent, there is the stark possibility of a split in the Church. I hope that my worries turn out to be unfounded.

I admire Benedict XVI for his courage in stepping down: he has done a great service to the Church.

Perhaps an even greater service is not only to reflect and pray, as he promised to do on his abdication, but perhaps to remain silent.

It would indeed be tragic to destabilise the barque of Peter, especially now.