Wherein I rant out of ignorance, impetuosity and
selfishness:
Where does rupture come into the ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity’? Is it possible to take anything that
Pope Benedict has said about the hermeneutic of continuity seriously when he
deems it possible to walk away from the papacy?
It is not a ‘job’ that one can retire from. It would be like Peter turning to his
fellow apostles and telling them, “right, chaps, I’ve decided to go back to
plain old Simon. I’ll remain in
Rome, do a bit of fishing from now and then, but, as for being the rock upon
whom Christ founded His Church, I’m past it.” Being Pope is being Peter!
What was Jesus’ reaction when, at Caesarea Philippi, having
recognised Christ for who He really was, Peter tried to tell Jesus that ‘it was
not for Him’ to die? “Get behind
me, Satan!” was Jesus’ response.
Given that Jesus said that, ‘if any man would come after me he must deny
himself, take up his cross and follow me’ and that Peter is to lead the rest of
us in dying to self to live for Christ it is incomprehensible for Pope Benedict
to give up.
It doesn’t follow that the man is giving up dying to self to
live for Christ on a personal level, but it says loud and clear to the Church
(as well as to the world that can’t help its fascination of the Church despite
its unbridled hatred and its ignorance) that the Papacy is a job one can retire
from, the Church is just a club, the Pope is just a CEO…
My first reaction to the news was one of horror. I thought of the conspiracy theories, the
apocalyptic stuff that exists out there.
We are now getting mud slung at the Church from without and from within
(with the Cardinal O’Brien thing – call me cynical, but we have a man who has
stood up courageously to defend the Church’s teaching on marriage (against state redefinition) and days
before the Conclave some allegations are made – pull the other one!). I don’t really believe the Malachy
prophecies, but the whole thing is a worry, and so unnecessary.
This whole rant is verging on disobedience (but I feel that renouncing
the Papacy is no different), but my current thoughts on the matter I should ask
forgiveness for: namely, that it would be best for all concerned if Pope
Benedict XVI died between now and Thursday evening…
 |
| But it does feel like you are abandoning us, Holy Father! |
To put it another way (and to reiterate my starting point):
Popes should die; that's what happens to them. How can it be that we should have a Holy Father as well as a
Holy Grandfather? And on a personal
note, JPII’s death and funeral affected me as a backslidden Protestant so much
that I became a Catholic (it certainly put me on the way, anyway). There is
nothing edifying, or nothing that evokes the sacrificial nature of the position
of Pope first and living as a Christian second, about standing aside.
I love the Pope.
He has made the Church a little bit more like what I expected the ‘One,
True Church’ to look like when, having recognised the Church as such whilst
still outside it, I ventured within its doors and (in some cases) found a
Protestant service with the Hail Mary stuck on (until +Conry banned it!). Not only that, but I saw him in Hyde Park where I prayed
with him. My friends went to Rome
on honeymoon and received a blessing from him at a Papal audience in front of
all those gathered in St. Peter’s Square.
I have a rosary blessed by him that they brought back, that I pray with
daily. Not only that but I like
the fact that non-Catholics think and say of him, ‘he hasn’t done much’. Well, he might not have done much if
you’re expecting him to pop up all over the world in his popemobile every few
weeks or declare contraception and abortion ok and start ordaining women,
etc. Unfortunately, however, there
remain things that he hasn’t done, that, I suppose I would have hoped he would
have got round to later if he had stayed longer (and, perhaps, if his health
were not fading). I’m talking
about doing the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary rather
than just admitting that it hasn’t been done. And other such things.
Yes, I love the Pope, but, sincerely, it seems to me that it
would be best if he died soon.
Forgive me.
There have been those in recent centuries who have despised the pope. Many such voices have even gone so far as to call the pope the anti-christ. But what anti-christ would ever voluntarily step down from a seat of such grandeur and authority? Regardless whether you agree with the pope's decision, this action of his makes it clear to the world that he has held this position with the heart of a servant, and not out of selfish ambition. His voluntary 'handing over the keys' to another- may very well be the most remarkable act of his legacy, displaying the humility of Christ, and revealing yet another facet of the dignity of the See of Rome. His life has been, and with God's help, will continue to be, a lamp in this dark world.
ReplyDeleteThis 'Consecration of Russia...' agenda seems strange to me. Russia fell upon some rather difficult times under the Soviets- such as have never been known in the west... Russia is a traditionally Orthodox Christian homeland. Nearly all of her churches were destroyed, her bishops, priests, and monastics were slaughtered. Those who could not conceal their religious convictions were considered insane by the atheist regime, and sent to gulags. Yet, Orthodox spirituality is slowly making a come-back. I am trying, really trying, to see how these are not fighting words. Russia really doesn't need to be kicked while she's down. She is already dear to the heart of Mary. Seriously, if we need help from Rome, we'll ask for it. How would you like it if we took the line that Rome has slipped into heresy, and we ought to consecrate Rome back to the Mother of God?
Hi Todd, your points about Benedict XVI are well-observed and I’m sure, in time, we will come to know a little more about the wisdom of his choice. It is perhaps in my nature to see the negatives first. I was actually about to delete the post when I saw your comment – which, I did preface by saying it was impetuous, etc.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Consecration of Russia to the immaculate Heart of Mary, these are not fighting words nor are they intended to be – unless of course that is what the Blessed Virgin Mary intended them to be, since she is there origin.
The Consecration derives from the Apparitions at Fatima in Portugal, primarily during 1917 (but also beforehand and for years afterwards to one of the seers, Sister Lucia). The Catholic Church has adjudged the apparitions to be authentic and while, being classed as private revelation, they are not required to be believed, the threat to the world if the Consecration is not done is quite scary, while the promise – once it is carried out (and Our Lady affirmed that it would be done eventually) – is one of peace on earth.
I understand that it might seem to be an attack on the Orthodox Church, but, by your own description, Russia has gone through tough times and, despite the apparent change in politics in the 80’s and 90’s I would doubt that a great deal has changed for most Russians. All forms of Christianity are still struggling, there is widespread corruption and Russia currently has more abortions than live births, even using the bodies of aborted babies to make cosmetics. Ecclesiastically there is also the issue of the rejection of the (Catholic) Pope as head of the Church by the orthodox Churches, which represents schism from the Church founded upon Peter.
Ultimately, however, if the Mother of God has asked for it to be done who are we to argue against her?
My prayerful request for it to be done is because, for whatever reason, the Popes who should have done it have chosen not to. It is also worth noting that one such reason is to not annoy the Orthodox Church, but personally, I think I would rather annoy the Orthodox Church than the Mother of God!
Sorry for being unduly confrontational. If you Catholics feel obligated to pray for Russia, that's great. ...and if you believe Mary asked for the pope to perform a 'consecration of Russia', I don't see any harm in that- so long as that's as far as it goes. (I don't understand why Pius XII's 'Sacro Vergente' doesn't count.) I agree that Russia is in dire need of spiritual revitalization, as could also be said of a number of nations that have historically been identified under Rome's umbrella.
ReplyDeleteMy anxiety arises in view of the various proselytist efforts that keep assaulting Russia from the west. To be fair, though, I think the bulk of such damaging 'evangelistic' efforts have been the work of Catholicism's Protestant offspring.
As you point out, the foremost obstacle separating the Catholics and Orthodox continues to be how the role of the papacy is understood. (Though there appear to be a number of other lesser, but nevertheless serious issues, as well.) Of course, we see your position as the one that is incorrect and is perpetuating the schism, just as you are convinced that we are the ones who are in error.
I share Metropolitan's sentiments regarding Pope Benedict XVI, that "he is not a media star, but a man of the church; and in the mass media, he is continuously criticized for traditionalism and conservatism. But these are precisely the merits which are of credit for millions of Christians, both Catholic and non-Catholic, who seek to preserve traditional Christian spiritual and moral values. It remains only to hope his successor will continue walking along the same path, and that Orthodox-Catholic relations will continue developing progressively for the common good of all Christendom.