The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Four years of Pope Benedict XVI
by Richard McBrien on Apr. 20, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionOn April 19 Pope Benedict XVI marked his fourth year in the papacy. Three days earlier, he had turned 82. At age 78, Joseph Ratzinger was the oldest person elected to the papacy since Clement XII in 1730.
Just to gain some historical perspective on that, Clement’s election was 46 years before the U.S. Declaration of Independence, almost 60 years before George Washington’s own election as the first President of the United States, and 63 years before the beginning of the French Revolution.
In an article by the Vatican correspondent for the Rome newspaper La Repubblica, Marco Politi suggests that Benedict XVI’s pontificate has now been broken into two halves: before and after the storm created by the Pope’s lifting of the excommunications from the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, including the Holocaust denier, Richard Williamson. (For the English translation, see “The Church’s new age of dissent,” The Tablet, 3/21/09.)
Politi notes that the controversy has disclosed serious tensions between the central government in the Vatican and important bishops from the Northern Hemisphere.
He writes: “Reading between the lines of the bishops’ messages of solidarity to the Pope,” following the release of his letter of explanation and apology to the worldwide episcopate, “there are requests that he change his style of government.”
Thus, his fellow German bishops professed themselves delighted with the Pope’s expressed desire to “enter into dialogue with the bishops (signalling that thus far this has not happened).” There were similar messages from the bishops of France, where the Society of St. Pius X has its largest membership.
“But it is the Austrian bishops who delivered the most strongly worded message,” Politi writes. They pointed out to the Pope that he is not the only one suffering from the consequences of the controversy, but that this pain has also been endured “by many local churches and people outside the Church.”
Politi asks: “Did it make sense to revoke the excommunications without any statement of faithful adherence to the Second Vatican Council on the very day that marked the fiftieth anniversary of Pope John XXIII’s decision to call the council? Did it make sense to insist on pardoning the Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson in the very week dedicated to the memory of the Shoah?”
Some explain the indelicate timing on the poor advice that the Pope had received from his associates. But Politi points out that the Vatican decree lifting the excommunications had been leaked to the press 48 hours before its official publication, and immediately thereafter Bishop Williamson’s interview with Swedish television was disclosed.
The Pope and his aides had two days in which to block the publication of the decree, but chose not to.
There was a similarly ignored warning in 2005. Several hours before the Pope was to deliver his now-famous lecture at Regensburg University, in which he quoted the anti-Islamic words of a distant Byzantine emperor, a group of journalists who had received an advance copy of the lecture advised the Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., that the talk would cause problems with the Muslims.
“No one can doubt,” Politi writes, “that Fr Lombardi informed his superiors. Above all, it is well known in the Vatican that Cardinal Angelo Sodano warned the Pope of the risks he was taking with his lecture. Yet Benedict XVI went ahead, with the consequence that he had to express many times his regret to the representatives of Islam.”
Politi notes that the controversy surrounding the lifting of the excommunications is “the first real crisis” of Benedict’s pontificate. In previous years, Politi observes, the crises were always outside the Church. “But this time the crisis exploded ‘inside’ the Church and the fact that emerges clearly is that the bishops have denounced the absence of collegiality in the government of Pope Benedict.”
The Pope was fully aware that a majority of the Cardinals whom he had convened in Rome in March 2006 insisted that the Pius X bishops should express a “faithful adherence to Vatican II” as a condition of lifting the excommunications. The Pope chose to ignore their views, went ahead with the decree, and created a firestorm as a result.
He had done essentially the same thing, again without consultation, in granting permission for the Latin Mass without approval from local bishops. Earlier this year he had to withdraw the nomination of an auxiliary bishop in Austria because the national conference of Austrian bishops demanded it.
Marco Politi notes that there are now “ominous rumblings” within the hierarchy, “as under a volcano.” Can the Pope and his advisers simply ignore them?
© 2009 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
Editor's Note: The following
Editor's Note: The following comments were posted earlier by readers. The original posting was deleted because of a technical glitch, but I managed to save these three comments. I am reposting them for the readers.
-- Dennis Coday, NCR online editor
Just to inform your viewers
Submitted by Yvon Thivierge (not verified) on Apr. 18, 2009.
Just to inform your viewers that Marco Politi is a much more honest and competent Vatican observer than is his Italian counterpart Sandro Magister.
He is on a par with your very own John L. Allen Jr. LOL!
Benedict XVI. Ad Multos
Submitted by Sieber (not verified) on Apr. 18, 2009.
Benedict XVI. Ad Multos Annos.
Such disrespect towards our
Submitted by Sally (not verified) on Apr. 18, 2009.
Such disrespect towards our Holy Father, this is sad.
Sally, I don't see any
Sally,
I don't see any disrespect being mentioned in this article. If anything I see a need for healthy, adult dialogue between Rome and the collegial leadership of bishops throughout the world. What is the purpose of bishops if there isn't dialogue between them and the bishop of Rome?
Sally Disrespect? My
Sally
Disrespect? My grand-daughter is Jewish and some of her ancestors perished in the camps and now this German Pope re-admits a Bishop who denies this. Can you imagine what I'll have to tell her when she grows up and asks about my church. I'd like to hear your reply, Sally. You say "sad". We all should feel sad when we've seen what our Pope can do---what's next?
"He had done essentially the
"He had done essentially the same thing, again without consultation, in granting permission for the Latin Mass without approval from local bishops."
The Holy Father knew what he was doing, he knows that the local bishops are nothing more than obstructionist when it comes to celebrating the Tridentine Rite. So the answer, take the power from the Bishops once and for all Deo Gratias
Of course they can ignore the
Of course they can ignore the firestorm. I love listening to pundits who react to the Vatican like it is a democracy where the leaders are accountable to the people. They can ignore because it doesn't matter to them. They will not lose power, or wealth, or prestige within their world. If membership falls, so what, they are not pastors. If contributions decrease, so what, they do not pay diocese bills and are not on the front line of feeding and caring for the poor. Let the national councils of bishops howl, let the cardinals complain, they do not have any power to consequence the Vatican. Let the journalist, theologians, lay men and women write and protest. What does it matter to them. They do not see and are not touched by the consequences of what they do. They live in the insulated world of the Vatican. All they care about is power and control and their ideology being faithfully and obediently followed by the adoring few. Pope Benedict never worked as a pastor, never had to feed and care for the poor, never had to negotiate from a position of powerlessness for his own needs and civil rights, never had to live with women on a day to day basis and understand their viewpoint. He has only lived in a narrow world with power and prestige that was unassailable. No wonder he cares so little if people disagree with him. It matters not at all to his world.
Pope Benedict XVI was chosen
Pope Benedict XVI was chosen by God to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth in order to intellectually fumigate Catholic seminaries, religious orders, and universities which have been infested with doctrinal errors and heretical fancies.
NCR must be reminded that the Church is not a democracy. Christ is the head of His Body the Church. Those baptized into the Church are the members of the body, which must act in accordance to what the head dictates. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Those who attack the pope attack Christ. Those who attack Christ attack the Church.
Gabrielserafin comments, "NCR
Gabrielserafin comments, "NCR must be reminded that the Church is not a democracy." May I suggest that Gabriel spend a few hours reading Church history. If he were to do that he might discover how very late in the history of the Church his ultramontanist viewpoint appeared.
Just how late, sir? The
Just how late, sir? The earliest Fathers of the Church affirmed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. If you have not heard of them nor read their works, I refer you to St. Jerome, St. Cyprian, St. Optatus and St. Augustine, inter alia. Gabrielserafin appears to have spent a few more hours reading Church history than Herr Liljenstolpe.
Dear Defender of the
Dear Defender of the Faith,
Sorry, but your history is incorrect. St. Peter was considered the First among Equals, but he never held the positions that modern day popes hold/held. And the Patriarch of Constantinople was considered an equal to the Bishop of Rome (who was the Patriarch of the West).
As far as democracy in the Church was concerned---The Roman Emperor Constantine, on his own authority, called the Council of Nicea to contain the Arian thinking and to reunite the Church in 325, AD. The emperor, Theodosius, who ruled the East Roman empire (Gratian ruled the West), called the Council of Constantinople I in 381 A.D. Oddly, Pope Damasus I, the Bishop of Rome, was neither informed that this council was taking place nor invited to attend it. So much for the primacy of the Pope at that time!
Between the Councils of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople I---the hierarchy and even the Popes were subscribing to the heresy proposed by Arius, namely that the Son of God was a "created being" and that there was a time when he did not exist.
The people were being taught this by their bishops and the people refused, refused to accept this teaching. It was the Sensus Fidelum of the People that brought about the Council of Constantinople I---where the Nicene teaching was reaffirmed and an important notion was brought out---the Holy Spirit was also equal to the Father and the Son---forming the Trinity. It was the democratic and incessent demands of the people that drove this council to hammer down the items of faith that we are so used to reciting each week-end as we profess our faith.
By the time we get to the Council of Constance, 1414-18, the Church was in the midst of the Great Western Schism (comptitions among two-three popes at the same time). Papal primacy, Defender of the Faith? People did not even know who WAS the real pope.
It was not until the Council of Trent (1545-63), that clear doctrinal statements began to made---all against the teachings of the reformers (Calvin in France and Zwingli in Switzerland).
And so it is quite correct to maintain that the Pope's exulted position is a relatively new thing. After all, in the Vatican mentality, things that happened 464 or so years ago, just happened yesterday.
Sir! Defender! Provide
Sir! Defender! Provide specific citations rather than such a scatter shot approach. It would take several years to cull through the several Patristic and prolific sources you suggest.
I suggest we also read the works of the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, including his book on the Popes and his editing of the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (as well as his landmark, compehensive and irreplaceable text: Catholicism). We may there discover the early bishops were ALL called Vicars of Christ, not just the one sitting in Rome (why Rome?). We would also find that the Second Vatican Council, so long delayed from an earlier century by an autocratic Pope, confimed the Chuch's collegiality, not autocracy.
the church is also not a
the church is also not a dictatorship
Once again I am reminded of a
Once again I am reminded of a friend's comment: where is Bernadin when we need him. McBrien's recitation of facts appears to be well researched. There is nothing disrepectful in citing them. What is disrespectful is to voice a willingness to listen and then ignore and disregard what is said. Obviously in the examples cited, Benedict could have avoided serious problems by listening to his advisors. thank God we live in a world where this can be pointed out... respectfully.
The Pope does not need
The Pope does not need permission from the bishops for anything. He has total and universal jurisdiction over the Church and can act as he sees fit for the preservation of unity, the good of the People of God, and the evangelization of the world. Pope Benedict has decided to act to end a schism in the Church, that of the Society of St. Pius X. His act in lifting the excommunication was consistant with doing what is best for the People of God.
Furthermore, in permitting priests the right to celebrate the Tridentine Rite throughout the world, he has insured that the People of God are not deprived of their patrimony. The "Latin Mass", as it is called, is part of the Church's heritage and treasure. Since Vatican II, left-leaning prelates have attempted to deprive the People of God of their heritage -- the Tridentine Mass, traditional devotions, etc. The Holy Father has taken action to restore that stolen treasure to the Church.
The Holy Father knew, rightly, that if he left it up to the bishops (as his predecessor had done) priests would not have the right to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Pope John Paul II allowed for the use of the Tridentine Rite with a diocesan bishop's permission. Thus, in the US, most dioceses allowed for one Tridentine Mass, usually at a time and parish that were not convenient for the faithful who wished to attend. Benedict knew that this is not fair to the Church and so he has allowed for widespread celebration of the Tridentine Rite in the Church, and withdrawn the authority of the bishops to stop it from happening. In so doing, he has guaranteed that those who wish to attend the Tridentine Rite can do so. Those who wish to attend the Novus Ordo (or Mass of Paul VI) can do so as well.
No matter how hard I try, I cannot understand why it is that some of the faithful are so deadset against the "Latin Mass". No one is forcing them to attend it. I do not attend it. I hear people, especially on NCR, demanding "inclusivity" in the Church. Well, the Pope has tried to see to that by providing the option for priests and people to celebrate the Mass as it was celebrated in the Church for centuries. I would think that the "inclusivity" crowd would applaud the Holy Father's gesture of concern and compassion on the part of those whose patrimony has been stolen by the "Spirit of Vatican II" (whatever that is supposed to be).
One wonders whether the
One wonders whether the current pope's behavior is attributable to narcissistic personality disorder, a degenerative disease of the brain, carotid artery stenosis, or all three.
He's certainly not Pope John XXIII of sainted memory, but there must be a good reason--other than downright orneriness!
One wonders whether
One wonders whether Wondering's comment is attributable to numerous personality disorders, an oxygen-deprived brain, arrested development of emotional maturity, or all three.
He's certainly not representative of any saint, but there must be a good reason - other than downright arrogance.
Wow...the bitter people are
Wow...the bitter people are going to come out of the woodwork shouting "POPE IS EVIL! HOW DARE HE NOT CONSULT!!!"
Why should he? You really want him to consult bishops who have been presiding over the decline of Catholicism for 40 years? Or modernist "theologians" shouting that the Church must do as the world commands it?
Pope Benedict is taking great pains to restore the living tradition of the Church. He doesn't care what the bureacracy of the Vatican thinks. He doesn't care what modernist bishops in Europe, who worry about what Muslims, Jews and everyone and their mother thinks of the Church rather than saving souls, think of the Church. Sorry folks but the glorious "revolution" is now over. 40 years of interpretting Vatican II as a hermeneutic rupture has effectively devastated the Church in Europe. The traditional orders, who follow the living tradition of the Church, are growing. The ones who scream and shout for revolution and "modernisation" are in collapse.
Let's get real here. National Catholic Reporter, are you serious? You run all kinds of inflamatory articles on the pope to celebrate his 4th anniversary?!
Please understand that everything the pope has done has been for the good of the Church. You talk about dialogue. But you seem to be completely against any dialogue with those of us who support traditional Catholic practices and authentic doctrines.
You are absolutely right in
You are absolutely right in what you say about the Pope. This website spends all its time sniping at the Church. They would like to have the Catholic Church make a monkey out of Herself in the same way as the Episcopalians have done with their organisation. This is the work of Satan and must be resisted absolutely.
Monkeys are marvelously
Monkeys are marvelously admirable when it comes to using their innate curiosity to figure things out--which they attempt to do as a matter of course.
Human beings, supposedly higher on the evolutionary ladder, were not created to nod like bobblehead dolls in response to bulls from pampered, isolated, medieval-minded men garbed in medieval costumes. However...
The layers of gorgeous fabric and antiquated thinking keep a lot of people in thrall who might otherwise be setting up crosses to crucify us "heretics."
Jesus, as we are shown in the Gospels, was crucified by the institutional church of his day. The challenge for us is whether we, too, can drink from his cup.
Do you really think that had
Do you really think that had the Church stayed exactly as it was under Pius XII that there wouldn't have been a massive decline in Church participation through out the Western world.
Vatican II was called partly because Rome saw a significant downward arc in participation. The idea was that updating and making things more 'user' friendly might slow or reverse the process. It did work for awhile, until Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae.
Benedict's moto proprio has been in effect for almost two years and the decline in Church attendance is on a steeper curve. What Benedict has done may be seen as good for your vision of the church, but that vision is shared by fewer and fewer people, and to be honest, I don't feel that traditionalists want to dialogue. The traditionalsist understanding of the papacy and church precludes dialogue because all Truth has been revealed and there is nothing to dialogue about. Rome has spoken.
Of course there is an
Of course there is an evolution of practices. Here is the problem: you think that people such as myself think of the 1950's as a golden age in Catholicism. It wasn't. I believe that Dietrich von Hildbrand said something along the lines that even though the Church appeared to be healthy in terms of mass attendance and people going to confession and the sort it was a sort of gilded age. If, after Vatican II, lay and clerical leaders emerged supporting the modernist heresy and throwing out Church traditions left and right this is true.
When I speak of Church traditions I am not just speaking of the Traditional Latin Mass. No. I speak of things such as ad orientem worship, kneeling to recieve the Holy Eucharist, music and architechture designed to foster a sense of the sacred, etc... By adn large a loss in the sense of the sacred, coupled with outright heresy and refusing to present a unified front to the modern world.
2) Vatican II was meant to "safeguard the Truths of the faith" as Pope Blessed John XXIII explained when he called the council. Sacrosancutum Concilium, the council document on the liturgy, did not ban latin or gregorian chant or many of the other things it was credited with. The idea of VII intending an updating Catholic dogma or beliefs to reflect "the signs of the times" is an outright fallacy.
I really think that the
I really think that the article says it like things presently are at this point in time. I am a little troubled by the ageist comments in the opening paragraph. No mention of the fact that we are all living longer and that medicine has made great strides...
One can never criticize Pope
One can never criticize Pope Benedict for his talk Regensburg. He was quoting an ancient king that Islam had a streak of violence in it. The irrational, barbaric and murder of a nun and violence that resulted proved the ancient king right. One can never be criticized for speaking the truth. Regensburg only proves that this Pope tells it like it is!
for Sally - Sally's comment
for Sally - Sally's comment is sad and disappointing. The office of the Pope deserves respect, but he is human and subject to error, as are the rest of us, but somehow his sactity, personhood and words are above reproach. tch, tch, tch. When he chooses to not listen to those around him, he deserves the outspoken and honest replies he has received. He has chosen to ignore all of the time, prayer, effort and work that was put into the changes and "fresh air" that Vatican II brought. He and those around him appear to be "slamming the doors of the Vatican" to anyone whose theological view difffers from theirs. I don't believe there is a direct line from the Vatican to heaven and that the Vatican has the only word that can and should be spoken. That is reminiscent of what the priests and sadducees believed when the prophets of their day called their words and actions into question.
I am glad that Father McBrien
I am glad that Father McBrien has always been faithful to the oath he made before Ordination to the diaconate.
II. OATH OF FIDELITY ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH
(Formula to be used by the Christian faithful referred to in Canon 833, Nos. 5-8)
I, N., on assuming the office __________ promise that I shall always preserve communion with the Catholic Church whether in the words I speak or in the way I act.
With great care and fidelity I shall carry out the responsibilities by which I am bound in relation both to the universal church and to the particular church in which I am called to exercise my service according to the requirements of the law.
In carrying out my charge, which is committed to me in the name of the church, I shall preserve the deposit of faith in its entirety, hand it on faithfully and make it shine forth. As a result, whatsoever teachings are contrary I shall shun.
I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the whole church and shall look after the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law.
With Christian obedience I shall associate myself with what is expressed by the holy shepherds as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith or established by them as the church's rulers. And I shall faithfully assist diocesan bishops so that apostolic activity, to be exercised by the mandate and in the name of the church, is carried out in the communion of the same church.
May God help me in this way and the holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hands.
(Variations of the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the formula of the oath, to be used by the Christian faithful referred to in Canon 833, No. 8).
I shall foster the common discipline of the whole church and urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law.
With Christian obedience I shall associate myself with what is expressed by the holy shepherds as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith or established by them as rulers of the church. And with diocesan bishops I shall gladly devote my energy so that apostolic activity, to be exercised by the mandate and in the name of the church, is -- with provision made for the character and goal of my institute -- carried out in the communion of the church.
And how are the laity
And how are the laity supposed to act towards the clergy? Unfortunately you appear to have learned early on that the Catholic Church is primarily a group of rules to be memorized and followed. However, you might have the Old Covenant confused with the New Covenant. This can be easily remedied by your picking up a Bible and carefully reading the Gospel of St. John, Chapters 13 - 17.
Perhaps now the current
Perhaps now the current hierarchy (bishops and cardinals) will understand the frustration of many of the laity as to why they elected this person pope. Fifty years ago a more enlightened group elected an "interim" pope who opened the doors and windows to bring a more uplifting message to be followers of Christ.
Pointing out an error, even
Pointing out an error, even an error made by the Pope, is not a sign of disrespect. In the matter of the Pius X Society, a lot of pain and much embarrassment and anger would have been avoided had Benedict XVI honored collegiality and respected the advice given to him earlier by the cadinals he'd convened in Rome three years before he lifted the excommunication of that heretical group.
I am fascinated by the number
I am fascinated by the number of readers who seem to think that the Pope is some kind of CEO who can simply say something, and it will spontaneously be done (think God saying "Let there be light!"). His first and most theological title is "Bishop of Rome." As such, his office has fundamental importance in assuring the unity of the Church and the teaching of doctrine. However, as a bishop, he can't force other bishops to do anything. All he can do is remove them from their sees if they depart from his view of what is determined to be the company line. There is the example of Pope John Paul II: when he determined that the ordination of women was not on the table for discussion, an eastern Cardinal who stepped over the line was immediately "retired" from his see.
When Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication of four schismatic bishops, all he did was open the door from his side. It's now up to the four bishops to decide whether or not they want to walk through the door and reconcile with the Church. When he listens to his advisors from the "Home Office," as John Allen opined in a recent article, the Holy Father may not get good PR advice on how to express to the global community something about the inner workings of the Church, and that is regrettable. But he is certainly as good a man, as holy a priest, as qualified a pope, as any of his predecessors. However, when it comes to respect, only so much respect is due his office. He must earn the rest, at least as it relates to the global community.
After his recent letter regarding his shock at the criticism from within the Church, the bishops of the world wrote to affirm their support. However, they also invited more consultation and collaboration so that he would express himself with better prudence and clarity. The Pope's infallibility only extends to the solemn proclamation of faith and morals, after all, and not to his ordinary pastoral office.
Yes, Pope Benedict XVI is not Pope John Paul II. For some that is good news; for others, it is bad news. I'm satisfied to let the Spirit decide.
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI
God Bless Pope Benedict XVI
My response to all the above
My response to all the above is that arrogance is not suitable in a leader, especially in someone wearing the shoes of the Fisherman. Arrogant behavior is not the fruit of humility, nor does it generate love, respect and obedience. Let us all pray that our hierarchy, beginning with the pope, be given the gift of clarity along with their designer shoes.
Benedict always manages to
Benedict always manages to outdo himself with the outrageous.
Indeed, I'm reminded of the old saying, "Really, folks, you can't make this stuff up!"
With this pope on his throne, the Church of Rome will continue to go downhill.
Darn sad. Really.
And just now today (4/20)
And just now today (4/20) another insult to Jews. The Vatican attending the anti-racist racist meeting in Geneva, Durban II. And who was the first speaker who wants to wipe Israel off the map--none other than, Ahmadinejad. The U.S, France Canada and other nations boycotted this racist meeting. But not the Vatican. Many nations walked out when the Iranian president spoke. Did the Vatican? What's next with our Pope? Who will he embrace next? Who will
he condemn next? He has his agents here in the U.S. investigating nuns. What will come of that?
I do not believe that Pope
I do not believe that Pope Benedict was "chosen by God" to be the Bishop of Rome. I believe he manipulated a power system created by men (College of Cardinals) who, for the most part are on the right side of the political spectrum and not of the mainstream. I am tired of these immature and parochial arguments being proclaimed by a fundamentalist mindset that is any thing but Christian, yet alone Catholic. Benedict is a human being with many faults, just like every other human being. He is nothing more than the Bishop of Rome who happens to occupy a traditional role of first among equals with his fellow bishops. It was never the vision that Christ had of how his church on earth should look. It is shameful that he and other bishops dress, live and act like powerful monarchs instead of Christ's shepherds of their flocks. Like Christ, they should live the simple life without adornment. The era is truly come to an end and I thank God for that. They have been exposed as posers and charlatans again and again. Vatican II opened the windows but Pope John Paul and Benedict nailed them shut again. Very tragic consequences but probably the next Papal election might put the Church back on the right track, to engage the world, to serve the People of God. If not, then let the institutional Church die. The sooner the better. Power corrupts.
What surprises me is the
What surprises me is the comments telling us how holy and worthy of honor and total obedience the position of pope is and that we must follow him to the ends of the earth yet they then say that Pope John XXIII did the WRONG thing by having Vatican II. Why is he so wrong yet this pope is so right?
I am wondering if most of the
I am wondering if most of the Catholic Church is a giant slumber room. Remarks like, "Yea, Benedict!" are indicative that most of the Faithful are fast asleep. The Church is crumbling and Benedict insists on making silly, needless statements, spending way too much time with dinosaurs like the Pius X Society, Holocaust deniers, and wearing the latest in liturgical fashions. Fanatics are welcomed and encouraged, while good and holy individuals are flat out excommunicated. Few in the Vatican seem to hear the thunder of feet exiting the Catholic Church.
CEOs of giant corporations who make Benedict's kind of decisions are usually asked to step down and let someone lead who has more of a handle on the global situation, or any situation. Benedict likes to spend most of his time putting out what he thinks are fires, but may, in fact, be the Holy Spirit trying to get his attention.
Can you say "hatchet job"?
Can you say "hatchet job"? These liberal Catholics are 1) always predictable, and 2) so tiresome. They have NOOO idea that the younger Catholics (especially those entering the priesthood) are nowhere near as liberal as they are. Maybe some day we can move past the "spirit of Vatican II" and get back to a teaching Church, not a touchy-feely one.
Brian13 - if you have
Brian13 - if you have observed the arc of the young priests the last few years, you would see that most of those who come out of Ordination quickly begin to lose their slavish Orthodoxy (the exception being those whacko right wing outliers). Why? Because when they experience the real world of parishes, they realize that they can't maintain their integrity and be strictly Orthodox...1) the Orthodoxy doesn't pertain to their real responsibilities as pastors and, 2) the faithful don't automatically hold them up as Vicars anymore because they've lost their respect. Today's priests have to EARN their respect. If you don't have followers, you're not a leader.
“We’ll not get leadership
“We’ll not get leadership from the clergy. They only ordain people who are celibate and pious and can’t lead anything. We could really use some bishops who embody the tradition of Catholicism. That could be a beginning.”
Dutch theologian, Eric Borgman
"You don't lead by hitting people over the head-that's assault, not leadership."
Dwight D. Eisernhower
"---------
By clericalism I mean an elitist mindset, together with structures and patterns of behavior corresponding to it, which takes it for ¬granted that clerics—in the Catholic context, mainly ¬bishops and priests—are intrinsically superior to the other members of the Church and deserve automatic ¬deference. Passivity and dependence are the laity’s lot. By no means is clericalism confined to clerics themselves. The clericalist mindset is widely shared by Catholic lay people."
Russell Shaw, "To Hunt, to Shoot, to Entertain: Clericalism and the Catholic Laity" (1993)
Please do not see my comment
Please do not see my comment as a racist comment, but I sense that poster like Brian13 is so wind up with Catholicity of the west ( i.e Western Europe and North America) and forgets about the Catholicity where it actually growing like in Asia and Africa.
TLM ? never heard about it... SSPX ? what's that...
Catholics in these parts of the world knows catholicism that is much more 'liberal', much more willing to work with people of different faiths (because they have to as a minority), less ready to assert their identity openly, supports Obama, don't really care about Humanae Vitae controversy and much more spiritual than theological.
The most favorite church organizations for them are Charismatics, Legio Maria and group prayers.
Eventhough still there are shortages of priests, but the communities churning out more priest per faithful ratio than in the west and they are start exporting them to other countries.
Also I think the claim that younger priests are more orthodox in the west is also illusionary. The correct conclusion should be only the more orthodox young who is drawn to be a priest.
A Sinner, You are absolutely
A Sinner,
You are absolutely right in what you say about the Pope. This website spends all its time sniping at the Church. They would like to have the Catholic Church make a monkey out of Herself in the same way as the Episcopalians have done with their organisation. This is the work of Satan and must be resisted absolutely.
Politi v The
Politi v The Pope
Politi:"...Did it make sense to insist on pardoning the Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard williamson on the very week dedicated to the memory of the Shoah."
The Pope: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/holocaust-denying-bishop-vat....
The Pope said that he was not
The Pope said that he was not aware of Bishop Williamson's denial of the Shoah.
as the evidence in this
as the evidence in this excellent article demonstrates, to believe that papal assertion requires a leap of faith only a gazelle could make.
it was known forever.
The PX Society in Argentina and France was sheltering Nazi War Criminals. Williamson had primary sources for his delusions.
The Vatican knew this; how could it not know? And yet Jozef Ratzinger insisted against all evidence on supporting known Nazi sympathizers who refused to make any amends or act of reparation for their own schism from the Church. What was Joe doing: listening to Chico? Honoring his father's own past? His Nazi Youth? His propagandist mother?
What was Jozef thinking in his confused old age?
Politi v The
Politi v The Pope
Politi:....
The Pope: http://www.zenit.org/article-25002?|=english
The power structure of the
The power structure of the Catholic church is corrupt to the core. "This is the work of Satan and must be resisted absolutely" write an "anonymous" poster. At least show some integrity by posting your name. Your arguments do ring of truth or reality to me. I'm certain millions of other Catholic Christians share my opinion that Vatican II was just the opening salvo of the Holy Spirit that the institutional church has drifted so far from the teachings of Christ. Its' treatment of the role of women, unhealthy celibacy of its' bishops and priests, the entire structure needs to be reexamined and if possible returned to the intentions of the early church mothers and fathers. I have no doubt that Christ did not intend for his church to have a Roman Imperial Monarch as its' head. This grew out of the conditions of the Roman Empire and Constantine. It has no relation to the theology of Shepherd. By justice, a woman should be just as qualified to be the Chief Shepherd or Bishop of Rome, as much as any male. The Bishop of Rome should also be able to have a wife or husband, as Peter also had a wife. The entire system developed over the many centuries since Christ's death and resurrection is so far removed from Christ's philosophy that it is crumbling before our eyes. I have no doubt this is the work of the Holy Spirit. The reason it is not happening at lightening speed is because the old boys power network is working overtime to prevent the theology that came from Vatican II from being implemented. Their last, desperate grab for power will fail. It is already failing in dramatic ways. The church that Christ intended will come and we will look back on this truly evil history with astonishment and shame. Say what you will about other Catholic communions such as the Anglicans, but I believe they are much closer to the model Christ intended for his Church on Earth.
The sometimes virulent
The sometimes virulent reactions to Fr. McBrien's blog challenge his opinions about the Pope. But Fr. McBrien soes not state any opinions. He does not say that he is for or against anything and he does not say that the Pope is right or wrong. He just states facts. Those who attack him do not state any facts, just opinions. I am inclined to go along with the facts.
It's interesting to me that
It's interesting to me that my church, the Episcopal church is always the target of the mean-spirited and hateful comments whereas the evangelicals in Protestantism (most of whom don't even think Catholics are Christian!) get off Scott-free. Could it be that the Catholic ultramontane crowd, like their evangelical conservative counterparts are more interested in pushing a certain socio-political agenda, and so make common cause with each other? It would appear so. Meanwhile I'll comfort myself in knowing that most Catholics are made of better stuff and seek good ecumenical relations.
I don't always agree with
I don't always agree with Father O'Brien, but some of the comments on here are ridiculous. I am no liberal Catholic, but I still know that even the Pope has his faults. The Pope is only beyond reproach when he makes a formal declaration on faith and morals, and Father O'Brien did not take issue with any of Pope Benedict's teachings in this article.
He only criticized the administration of the Vatican under Benedict. STOP denouncing Father O'Brien short of being a heretic.
The present situation in the
The present situation in the Catholic Church is sad and depressing. So much chatter about rules, rituals, power, etc. etc. while we close church after church because of the shortage of priests. I am scandalized that the vatican and the western bishops are not declaring an emergency situation. How can we deny the Eucharist to God's people. As far as I am concerned the whole lot of them should be put in the building where the Pope is elected and not let out until they have figured out a way to make the Eucharist available to all, and stop closing down communities and parish churches.
The Pope is just not really
The Pope is just not really in tune with public opinion--either in his own country or anywhere else for that matter. Likewise, he is not in tune with what his own advisers say--or apparently doesn't care.
Excommunication of Lefebvrist
Excommunication of Lefebvrist was due to ecclesiastical and cannocical issue. Repeatedly it have been said this should not be confused by Holocoust denial.
If anyone is interested in Holocaust discusion then it should be treated differently.
In Catholic grade school, as
In Catholic grade school, as well as in my high school church history class, we were taught that any time the Church convened a council (such as Vatican II), the Holy Spirit was acting through the decisions of the participants, i.e., mainly the pope and the cardinals. Thus there was to be no questioning of the council's conclusions; they were to be followed, period, end of discussion. Why is it, then, that suddenly the most conservative elements in the Church began to challenge so many of the recommendations of Vatican II almost immedately, and have not ceased doing so to this day?
Again, this is a very simple question and it is not a rhetorical one: When did it become acceptable to throw the Holy Spirit out the window?
Actually, Pope Benedict is
Actually, Pope Benedict is following Vatican II. He and other conservatives are actually following what the Council decided and ACTUALLY SAID. Many of these leftists have no clue what the Council actually said--only what they "heard about," or what the "spirit" of the Council was. Do you know that Vatican II has a whole theology of the episcopate that basically goes against what most people say about bishops on this board. How many times have I read people asking who made the bishop the chief theologian of the diocese. Well, it's right there in Lumen Gentium. Plain and simple. So the Holy Spirit certainly was present at the Council. That is the Holy Sprirt--not the "spirit of Vatican II"!! I am also curious why many feel that the Holy Spirit was only present in the 1960s but absent from any current Church decision.
To the Ubiquitous
To the Ubiquitous Anonymous:
I have long since misplaced my copy of the Documents of Vatican II, so I cannot contend with you about the episcopate in general or even in particular. I can, however, with a fair amount of certainty, say that the Council was clear in its position on, for example, the Tridentine Mass. Yet who is ranting about bringing it back? The ultra-conservatives, those very ones who continue to insist that the hierarchy are guided in all their judgments by the Holy Spirit.
But the logic of these critics simply doesn't hold up. John XXIII conceived of the Council as opening up the Church to the fresh air of certain changes.
Change, in fact, is what any Council is about, else why convene one. But when the conservative element found out precisely which changes had been decreed, their logic went haywire and they fell back upon the very sentimentalism/ emotionalism they had always decried before. One has to wonder whether these men went to the Council to sit and congratulate themselves on their masterful leadership.
As for "presenting a united front" for the Church to the rest of the world, that is what the American bishops (99% of whom are conservative to the core, thanks to JPII's political vigilance) did when the priestly sex abuse horrors were made public. In an avowed effort to prevent "giving scandal," JPII and his hierarchy did indeed present a united front, and in doing so proliferated the "scandal" Jesus spoke of when he said it would be better for the scandalizers to be cast into the sea with stones around their necks.
So much for the whitened sepulchre of conservatism in the Church today. And so much for those who, when they speak of the Church, mean only the hierarchy, as in "the Church teaches/has always taught," etc. Because if anyone wonders where the Spirit went when the hierarchy tossed her out, you need only ask one of the "groundlings." She is teaching us a lot these days.
dear
Actually, not to nitpick, but
Actually, not to nitpick, but it was Paul VI who instituted the changes in the Mass including using the vernacular, this was not the result of Vatican II or Pope John XXIII. Judging by the texts of VII, the alteration were supposed to be made to the "Tridentine" Mass. But Paul VI had the authority to alter the mass and did so.
Devon, thanks for the
Devon, thanks for the correction; I really do appreciate it. But in any case the changes were made by a pope, the highest member of the "church" (read: hierarchy), whom so many conservatives consider infallible even when not speaking ex cathedra. One would assume that the Holy Spirit was closely involved in the changes fo the liturgy instituted by Paul VI. Yet the "cafeteria conservatives" choose to oppose them, regardless.
do you recall when Ratzinger
do you recall when Ratzinger was elected Pope after much discussion the white smoke would not rise from the chimney flue, and had to be redone? Was the Holy Spirit giving the assembled conclave a chance to reconsider?
The very young families in my
The very young families in my area are eagerly awaiting the eventual regularization of those fine SSPX priests. Priestly vocations may be down in the typical diocesan seminary… but not so in the traditional orders like FSSP or FSSPX. All of us will indeed join them at SSPX when it becomes licit to do so. They (SSPX and also the fraternities which already enjoy regularization) have managed to keep the chairs full with young couples and families. These families are growing, vibrant and faithful to magisterial teaching. They are not represented by mom & dad’s matching law firms and 1.25 kids per family like most cultural Catholics are. We younger folks find contraception as disgusting as an orthodox Jew would find a bacon sandwich! Blecchhh! In Benedict we find the disciplinarian that the Church now needs. John Paul II was the most loved and least obeyed pontiff probably in all of history. But John Paul II (by his great patience with heretics) managed to cajole we stiff necked people into avoiding what could have been called the great Western schism. Now that we see the sour demographic fruits of modernism… the Holy Spirit has given us this great theologian in Benedict VI to help heal our self inflicted wounds. I believe he is up to the job with God’s help.
Many folks think that the old mass is for old fogies who are pre Vatican II. They are SERIOUSLY misinformed in this regard. Our own teenage girls and 10 year old son prefer the old Mass because it is devoid of teeny bopper altar girls, banal commentary and pop psychobabble. They dislike the 'worship music' in most parishes, which they laughingly describe as 'tooth paste commercial jingles'. Yet... they are totally focused and delighted at the sound of Gregorian plainsong sung at the intriot of the Old Mass or upon singing the Asperges Me . We want to KNEEL for Holy Communion thank you! Our 25 year old Latin Schola instructor is more versed in the Council document on the liturgy than the diocesan nun who heads our office of worship (or whatever it’s called).
I can think of as many as 20 families in my immediate circle of friends who have written to Benedict over the years when he was Cardinal prefect… begging him to consider liberalizing the use of the Tridentine Mass. We wrote to him when the USCC was trying to play around with the lectionary… we wrote to him about so called ‘inclusive language’, we sent money to any organization which was willing to fight for orthodoxy. Most importantly… we prayed our Rosaries in front of the Tabernacle. Our Lord has indeed delivered the goods with this devoted pastor. And we, the young, are grateful for Benedict’s discipline when it comes to Scripture, Tradition & the proper understanding of magisterial teaching, which seeks continuity (not rupture) with the past.
You cannot argue with beauty and antiquity! Benedict knows full well that the reform of the reform is needed. Anyone who has read his writings over the last 3 decades should fully understand where he is coming from. He is indeed a breath of fresh air... and a true implementer of the intent of the council Fathers. Thank God for him.
So if you wish to objectively understand this pope… you have to take a serious look at what has he has written and what he himself has suffered through. I’m appalled at some of the vicious statements made here by so-called ‘progressive Catholics’. I thought that ‘progressives’ were supposed to be open minded… but clearly many of the Holy Father’s detractors here have not read very much about his own life or much of what he himself has written. Will you ever wake up and smell the incense?
Thank you HolySmoke. We are
Thank you HolySmoke. We are another one of those families with lots of small children attending the Tridentine Mass. Our parish is not part of the SSPX but one of the many local territorial parishes where the pastor chose to include the Extraordinary rite in our regular Sunday worship. It is notable that our Extraordinary rite 10:00 AM Mass is growing in attendance while the 8:30 Ordinary rite attended by older parishioners are shrinking. This is no surprise. We have more kids, and our kids in turn will have more kids. If the Catholic Church was a Democracy, the "Progressives" are already out-numbered and those of us faithful to the Holy Father will only continue to grow. Richard McBrien and all the aging "Progressive" NCR readers needs to get their head out of the sand.
It may very well be a good
It may very well be a good thing when the Pope does something outrageous- such as in the SSPX controversy or the Tridentine Mass decision, or in his Regensburg lecture. It can invite criticism, even from other bishops, and from faithful laity and the result will be the peeling back of the layers of infallibilism that have covered the church. That's the good thing.
I find it interesting that so
I find it interesting that so many are utilizing this comment column to air such a wide variety of grievances. Pope Benedict was not acting Ex-Cathedra when he made any of the statements under discussion in this article. This would mean that these statements are all subject to respectful discussion.
I wonder about those who assert that the current Pope is bringing us back to a former "golden era" of the church, as though he (Pope Benedict) is restoring her to the status and condition of a former time. While the eternal Spirit may not change, the world does change, and so do the many and varied ways in which the Spirit speaks. Theology changes over time because theology is not revelation, but merely the interpretation of revelation. As such, it takes the form of an ongoing discussion. Shouted accusations and denigration are not a very good substitute for discussion, whether liberal or conservative.
"I wonder about those who
"I wonder about those who assert that the current Pope is bringing us back to a former "golden era" of the church, as though he (Pope Benedict) is restoring her to the status and condition of a former time."
The Pope isn't doing it all himself - the Holy Spirit is leading the way.
"While the eternal Spirit may not change, the world does change, and so do the many and varied ways in which the Spirit speaks."
But Truth itself spoken in a 'varied way' by the Holy Spirit will never contradict itself or go against the will of God. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the vessel God created for teaching and in some cases developing these Truths that always existed. So for example, if the Church condemns New Age practices introduced into the Mass or for purposes of 'private devotion', the Church God created is using the teaching capacity given to it and the discernment granted to it to say that it's all a bunch of hooey at best and satanic in origin at worst. Just because the Cardinals did not convene and the Pope did not sit in Peter's Chair to proclaim it so, does not mean that we aren't obligated to follow out of respect for the teaching Church and the duty we have to be faithful to that same Church.
Sorry, Holysmoke. I don't
Sorry, Holysmoke. I don't believe that you exist except in the imagination of some MUCH older traditionalist who is thinking wishfully.
I've been hearing about how hordes young people are so orthodox these days these days and packing the Latin Masses, etc., etc. Funny, I've really done some intense checking and it's all bunk! There are a handful of younger people. A HANDFUL!!
So stop fabricating these fantasies.
What we need to do now is not
What we need to do now is not to criticize each other or to criticize the Pope for the right or wrong things he may have done. The Pope, as said, is torn between the this world and the divine world.
The Pope and the church needs our prayers, If we fight and tel nasty things about each other, we are not actually living the teachings of Christ. I know and believe that we are all brothers and sisters in faith believing in The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let us just Pray for each other and trust the Lord Our God when he says that He will be with us till the end of time.
Post new comment