The press, the traditionalists and the progressives are making contrasts between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. We really won't know the extent of the contrasts for a bit more time and well into the next papacy for all we have seen thus far is a contrast in style but not in substance as well as a contrast in personality, one more pastoral and people oriented the other a bit more aloof who had to work at and indeed worked well at being people oriented.
The contrasts thus far is a rupture in papal style, from the more serene, majestic view of the papacy as modeled in the outerwear of Pope Benedict and the more earthy and simple outerwear of Pope Francis.
Now, I happen to believe Pope Francis could have shown a continuity in style with his predecessor who is still living but could have added more shock value to his style of being simple and people oriented by doing all the things he's doing. I would hope that he wouldn't seen papal fashion in everyday use and liturgical use as an either/or proposition but a both/and. Pope Benedict was more consistent in what he wore liturgically and otherwise but modeled but simplicity and splendidness as he did not see beauty as an enemy of the Church.
As everyone knows I am clairvoyant but maybe not, but what I sense, like the character on the popular TV show "The Mentalist" is that Pope Francis will not be as keen on reforming the Liturgy in the way of Pope Benedict but will maintain the status quo, and here I mean what is experienced in rank and file parishes throughout the world, which we all know is quite a mixed bag of traditionalism, progressiveness and blah and wow!
Pope Francis is going to focus on ministry to people and showing the love and mercy of God. He is going to model simplicity in his papacy for other bishops to model and for priests to witness. He is going to make the poor a priority. It is here that I fear that he might focus too much on the material poverty of the world, which is great and forget that some of the materially poor are very rich spiritually whereas the rich in material goods live destitute lives of poverty when it comes to the faith and morals of the Church.
But Pope Francis wants the Church to identify with the poor and lift them up, welcome them and allow them to encounter the grace and mercy of God.
I happen to believe in Fr. Z's motto, "Save the Liturgy, Save the World" but there is more to it than that. Sometimes liturgists are too self-satisfied with the Liturgy and desire to live hermit lives in the temples of the Church making beautiful music and splendid ritual. But Jesus showed the first bishops he ordained, the Apostles, that His Church led by them was to worship him in the temple but also serve Him in the world.
The Old Testament priests stayed in the temple and would never do anything that would render them "unclean" or ritually impure. So I doubt that they visited the sick, washed the feet of other people, stopped on the road to assist a bloodied injured traveler or touched the dead. They simply didn't see their God-given role in doing these things, their lives were temple oriented.
Jesus blows that apart and shows not only the bishops but all the people of God that worship and piety are good but not enough, one has to serve God in the poor and needy as Jesus modeled throughout his public ministry.
Just as the apostles were scandalized when Jesus washed their feet, sometimes we are scandalized when we see bishops and priests breaking the mold and doing things that are unexpected. Pope Francis washing the feet of non-Christians and two women is one such event which has nothing to do with the literal washing of the feet of the 12 apostles but the washing of the feet of the 12 as a sign to the Church of what the Church must do in the world.
I agree, we need explanations from our Holy Father when he bends the rules to teach a major point to the Church. I presume that his explanation will come in some kind of formal exhortation or encyclical on faith during this Year of Faith.
But clairvoyant that I am, I sense that his encyclical on faith during this year of faith will not be isolated to the temple but broadened to include the life in the world so that there is the integration of faith and good works, temple and home, work and play. That's orthodoxy which leads to orthodpraxis.
14 comments:
The danger is Pope Francis may, intentionally or unintentially, make "the Poor" into the "Novus Deus".
And as to his "humble and simple" style, there seems to be an almost calculated and planned intent for it to be in the spotlight at all times. Someone truly humble does so in secret, but Pope Francis seems to be using "humbleness" as a PR campaign, in an almost boastful way. Now, this may be going on without Francis' awareness or consent, but it is definately going on.
--- Jack.
To amplify what Jack has said, Pope Benedict visited the same prison in 2007 which Pope Francis has made headlines in this past Thursday. He did so without the camera crew and spot lights though. Who is truly being humble? This attempt by the media to portray the new Bishop of Rome as some sort of "people's Pope" is little more than an attempt to denigrate the work which Pope Benedict did. Pope Benedict was every bit as pastoral as Pope Francis, without the hoopla, and a much better dresser ;)
Liturgists are needed as are the rest of the parts of the body. They do have a more prominent place and should be the 'center line' guide for actions. The traditional should be the goal while the exceptions should be allowed by circumstances.
Of course Pope Francis is a different person and he should be his own man in that regard. It would be a much greater problem if he tried to emulate Pope Benedict and created confusion through some error. The break should be clean to the person, but in continuity through influence and respect for what has gone before. That lack of respect for the past was the problem with the spirit, if not the fact, of Vatican II.
The Liberals are crowing at the defeat of the Traditionalists when there has been NO CHANGE except in the person of Pope. Traditionalists are flinching at the imaginary blows of a non-existent battle as reported by the media.
I think Pope Francis is in a dilemma: who in the Vatican can he trust? He needs to make big changes, but also needs to enlist the aide of competent Liturgists to contemplate the meaning of his actions. He didn't have a lot of time to think about washing the feet of the women Muslim prisoners. There are both good and bad things about that. I am thinking the good may outweigh the bad, in this case, if it kick starts evangelising the Islamic world.
Please note that the Pope's 'simple' chasuble is well-made, lined in silk and with a proper border. When Paul VI was crowned in 1963 he wore the full regalia but very quickly divested himself of most of it, tiara, fanon, gloves et al. He greatly simplified the ceremonial of bishops and indeed issued decrees on ecclesiastical dress in order to emphasize a more minimalist style. Previous popes had not seen the need to do this - it had everything to do with the decade, the Council, and Paul's personal view of his own 'image'. Although he assumed that his successor would be crowned, by 1978 most of the accoutrements of the papal court had been done away with, so JP I's coronation would have been a low-key affair compared with 1963 which itself had been simplified since 1958.
Luciani's decision not to be crowned in effect tied the hands of his successor, elected barely a month later. By the time JP II died there had not been a coronation for 42 years, long enough to set a precedent. Also the crowned heads of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Spain do not have a formal coronation; only the British monarchy preserves this.
In pre-Revolutionary France most of the prelates were aristocratic and worldly - think of Cardinal de Rohan, Lomenie de Brienne, Talleyrand - but the Church carried on her work in education and with the poor (literacy rates were higher than in the present-day USA). By destroying the Church the Revolution also destroyed the entire social welfare system, with catastrophic results. Talk of a 'poorer Church' is meaningless waffle, and to assume humility by dressing down (as politicians do) is Tartuffery. Obama and Cameron, millionaires both, fool nobody.
Jack and Templar are correct. RCG, the proper way to evangelize the Islamic world is the way Richard I was in the midst of when he had to return to England. Too bad, that...
The fact that His Holiness washed the feet of a female Muslim isn't the problem. The idea that priests feel like this gives them liturgical license to follow suit is the problem.
Christ told the apostles at the Last Supper that the greatest among them would serve. That is exactly what the Pope is doing and he is calling on his priests to do the same. And, more than that, he is giving them a model to follow, just as a true shepherd should. That model is humility.
For the Pope, humility is manifested in actions like washing feet very publicly. For a parish priest, humility can be manifested by humbly following the liturgical rules, which might involve dealing with stones being thrown from parishioners.
I hope everyone will consider that the Catholic thing to do is to give others the benefit of the doubt and not to assume the worst about them. I also urge everyone to actually read the words of the Holy Father and not rely on secondhand accounts or his actions alone. For myself doing so was quite edifying as I recognize he speaks with the voice of a saint like many of the Church Fathers.
If this Pope is not a liturgical expert which has already been hinted at then why not let the Master of Ceremonies do his job and prepare the liturgies. It should not be about a personal style or taste of each man to step into the Pope's shoes (well no shoes in this case). There is a Papal Style and that is what every Pope should step into during liturgical ceremony. As a NO generation Catholic I am already so sick of seeing everything in liturgy change with the drop of a hat. I look to Roman liturgies to see continuity with the Church of the past and also of the last Pontificate. It is comforting to see each Pope, a different face repeating the gestures and actions of the last. This back and forth rupture stuff is confusing. As it is I am Faithful to the Pope and Church but did not tune in to any of the liturgical events during Holy Week on TV. I can read the Pope's words online but viewing the rupture with the last Pontificate does not appeal to me in the least. It is hard because I enjoying digging deeper into my Faith during the last Pontificate with each liturgical restoration I saw. It brought me deeper into my Faith. I guess I will have to go to history books now as the visual external signs of Catholic Identity and the office of the Pope are being suppressed. It is also difficult to absorb that the current Pope would in so few weeks show us all with his actions he does not support the Hermeneutic of Continuity and indeed plans on rupturing with the previous Pontificate. It all seems so unnecessary. I am sure all his messages and words would have shown through no matter what he was wearing. But I guess that is part of the new style and being modern. To be able to do as we wish with liturgical law etc. Let's see how this trickles down...
Father, my Catholic family would have lived in Macon since the 30's. Except for the fact that on the night my grandfather, grandmother and mother were there to visit, a black man was lynched by being chained to a car and dragged around the town square until he was in shreds. Your attitude that Macon is more faithful than other places is just nauseating. Get some perspective, please!
Perhaps you meant this for the post above this one on the poll taken on various region's religiosity? I simply point out the findings. I haven't stated anything about Macon but do refer to Augusta which is in the top 5.
Anonymous, so you are basing your judgement on one incident that happened in the '30's. Sounds like just a hysterical effort to play a race card and drag out that favorite lib whine "Ewwww! Racism! Ewww, Ewww! Please, can't you do better than that?
Pin/Gene - When today you use the term "feral minority" to refer to African Americans, we don't need incidents in the 1930's to show that racism is alive and well.
Ignotus, "Feral minorities" is not a racist term. It simply describes the behavior of large groups of mostly blacks looting, killing, stealing, whoring, dealing drugs, and organizing flash mobs in areas where they exist in large numbers.
Now, real racism is the Leftist policies that have cynically created a welfare state that is soft on crime and which encourages class warfare, dependency on government programs, the dissolution of the family, and permanent poverty. Racism is alive and well in the Democratic Party, which must have a permanent underclass to remain in power.
Pin/Gene - "Feral minority" is a decidedly racist description of African Americans.
As much as you want to sugar coat your racism, it comes through loud and clear.
And now we have your use of the term "fag" in referring to gays:
"Gene said...
WSquared, Yes, the "man cave" is one of the more unfortunate developments resulting from our feminist dominated, fag infested culture. *sigh*
March 25, 2013 at 4:55 PM
What's next?
I don't know, Ignotus, how about "feral minority fags."
I find it interesting that, back in the original post, you are the one who identified "feral minorities" as blacks. I merely mentioned feral minorities, you immediately identified them as black. Look over your shoulder much when going to the ATM? LOL!
Post a Comment