Who wrote the following?
It was especially the Latin countries that developed the idea that the Church is the “Church of the poor.” This assertion undoubtedly lends itself to many interpretations and misinterpretations. A certain sentimentality could lead to a kind of romanticizing of poverty, which is harmful to nobody as much as the poor themselves. But the idea is essentially sound and may be seen as the expression of an important spiritual reawakening. The Church has for a long time looked like a Church of baroque princes. It is now returning to the spirit of simplicity which marked its origins – when the “servant of God” chose to be a carpenter’s son on earth and chose fisherman as his first messengers . . . In the footsteps of Christ the Church is sent especially to the forgotten and to the outcasts. (Pope Francis? or Pope Benedict?)
Find out by reading a very good article on Pope Francis and Pope Benedict at the Chant Cafe HERE!
21 comments:
For concrete evidence that the posted article is an accurate analysis, see the latest Rorate Caeli posting which shows a communique that the Pope will use the Paul VI/John Paul II staff as well as the gold staff made for Benedict XVI. Evangelium and Imperium . . .
Well, all is certainly not right...
It does , sadly, get much MUCH better than this. Some comments from Ratzinger taken from a time shortly after the Vatican Scandal, err I mean Council, mean nothing as his position on things changed widely from his youth to his years of wisdom later in life. If anything this article proves to me that Bergoglio's movements will be retrograde. And even if one can argue that Ratzinger felt this way as Pope, he clearly still understood the difference between the "Church" and the "Papacy" and accorded the later the respect it deserved.
Bergoglio's movements will be retrograde...
Retrograde towards what, Templar?
___
About the Scorzelli ferula: I've never liked it much, aesthetically. It looks wretched. Of course, I now realize that's probably supposed to be the whole point. It's only the fact that it was made in the middle of the third quarter of the 20th century that makes me consider that the artist wasn't trying to communicate the depraved cosmological act that was the death of Christ, but instead that he was making an ideological argument in metal re: modernism. Had it been cast in 1204 or something, I never would have thought anything of this.
Aesthetically, I much prefer the old/Benedictine golden ferula. It is more attractive and shows the symbolic glory of heaven more clearly. The Agnus Dei on it is great, that being one of my favorite Christological symbols. It certainly radiates triumph, triumph of Christ, not of the man holding the staff. That kind of triumphalism (to use the term in a very specific manner) is perfectly good, methinks.
So in a sense, I think both ferulae are fine. If I was Pope, I confess that I'd probably use the golden ferula much more, or exclusively, but I would not melt the Scorzelli one. Indeed, it is quite an iconic thing to see the depraved Scorzelli crucifix-ferula next to the most glorious vestments, like this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/01/pope-benedict-xvi.jpg
I wish I oculd find a site that posts pics of all the papal ferulas since Pius IX and the invention of photography.
The closest thing I could find is this site:
http://cathcandy.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/new-papal-ferula/
Perhaps, FrAm, this could be your next blog article, if you could find photos of all the various ferulas of the last century and a half.
As for the Scorzelli ferula, I don't have a problem with it, as many traditionalists seem to have. But I will say, even though it was used by Paul VI, John Paul I, Benedict XVI, and now Francis, I really consider it to be John Paul II's ferula, and Frances just didn't look quite right with it. Of the ferula's posted on the above link, I have to say my favorite is the Pius IX one (the one Benedcit XVI used briefly in between the Scorzelli and his own Benedict ferulas).
ytc: retrograde towards the glimmer of hope that was the Ratzinger Papacy. For my entire adult life, until that time, I watched the The Church slide further ad further into insignificance....with the Papacy of Ratzinger there was a brief hope that a corner had been turned, we had realized the mistakes and were making corrections.
I am not optimistic. I expect the Church to cave more and more to secular pressures and to the enemy within. Within the next decade, I would not be at all surprised to see women deaconesses (a first step to the ordination of women), a weakening of the Church's stance on birth control, permission for Priests to marry, and some concessions for same sex couples. This is unless something happens that is, indeed, surprising. At that point, the jig is up. It will only remain to argue at what point the Church is no longer the church, then just pick which Protestant denomination seems closer to the true Faith...maybe the Baptists or Pentecostals.
There is the possibility that there will be a major schism in the Church, with the modernist group advocating all of the above and the other group sort of plodding along like they always have. The traditionalists certainly haven't put up much of a fight. I guess we'll get what we deserve...
Gene, the Church (the real Church) cannot do those things.
ytc, Well, that is my point about when is the Church no longer the Church and the "Real Church" will have to go underground.
Remember, we used to say similar things about the nation and the Constitution.."oh, they could never do that," "ah, that'll never happen." Never underestimate the depths to which we can sink...
Gene, I understand where you're coming from, and I feel the same mixture of deep pride and deep disgust towards these USA's predicaments right now, culturally, governmentally, and other wise. However, the Church is completely different from a country, even thought She has Her own country... The Church will never die, but the USA certainly can. And will, eventually.
Pope Francis is concerned about the church being self-referential. That is, the Church shouldn't be focused primarily on herself. I see Pope Francis' interpretation of the liturgy along these line. While we know that the papal trappings are symbols of Christ's glorious kingdom, that meaning is lost to the world. Pope Francis is most aware of this and thinks that the Church should be most concerned about this. Think about the red shoes. We inside see them as symbols of papal honor. They represent to us martyrdom. Francis know that to the outside world, they are luxurious Prada slippers. We know this isn't true, but as does His Holiness. But the Pope is willing to sacrifice some of the non-essentials symbols of his office for what he sees as a greater good: lost souls. While I don't think his way is the only way, or the way I would have chosen, I admit that his way is working. Listen to the media. They love his humility and willingness to depart from the "trappings." He is opening the door for the lost sheep by not being "self-referential."
No, ytc, the Church cannot die, but she can become the "tiny remnant" of which Holy Scripture speaks. Perhaps that is God's judgement upon the Church...He does chastise His people for their unbelief. I had hoped that the Church might really become a leaven for the nation, but that ain't happenin'.
Steve, I would not judge what is "working" for the Church by media response. They will use this faux humility as a tool to further encourage the de-construction of Catholic identity, the liturgy, and Church doctrine. It appears to me that we are headed in a very bad direction.
Steven, the media love the Pope's humility because he is giving away the trappings not because of why he is giving them away.
They see this as progression, which is their focus. An evolution away from claims to absolute Truth and authority. In other words, they see the last bulwark of Truth that stands in their way forfeiting its steadfastness.
Now, we on the inside recognize it as humility. True humility. They see it as a political statement, which is how they see everything.
As for the lost sheep, lets pray they see it correctly and come back to the authority and not because they see the authority as stripped bare. I fear, though, that many of those returning will soon find the former when they expected the latter and they.l leave even more embittered than before.
Gene raises a scary point.
The reason why it's scary is that in one respect it sounds very much like Luther and the "reformers," and Catholics are, and should be, obviously loath to even entertain the notion that they might be going down that road. These "reformers" argued that the institutional Catholic Church wasn't the _real_ Christian Church, precisely because it had taught error. They (or at least the Lutheran element) defined "error" as doctrines that, in their view, were "non-scriptural."
Gene's argument is similar but with a major difference. He suggests it's possible that the institutional Church, while it has been the same thing as true Church so far (consubstantial, quare subsistence), at some point in the future may be co-opted and corrupted by heretics who will then use the institution to teach error. The two differences are 1) The error will consist not of Lutheran non-scripturality, but a repudiation of what the institutional Church has taught as doctrine in the past, and 2) that the elements that make the Catholic Church the true Church will be forced into refuge--that there will be a split between the institutional and the true, which heretofore have always been the same. To rephrase this second one, the real Catholic Church would no longer consist of the visible structure we see; the true Bishop of Rome would no longer be in the Vatican, and the bishops in communion with the Vatican would no longer be part of the real Catholic Church.
This is scary, as I said. Could it happen? Offhand, I can't think of any Catholic teaching that says that such a split between the institutional and the true can't take place, especially during the end times. On the other hand, that way lies sedevacantism and worse, if we take a wrong step. There's more than one antipope running around right now (at least we all assume they're antipopes).
Sticking with the structure, assuming that it not only always has been, but always will be, the true Catholic Church, is easy. Until now it has aways been safe, even in the Church's darker moments. But what happens in the future if those we take to be the pope and the bishops in communion with him begin to systemically deny established Catholic doctrine by explicitly teaching or doing things that expressly conflict with that prior doctrine? If they are, they aren't the real Catholic hierarchy, are they? Would all of us agree with that? But the idea of it happening, and how it might develop, and what the Faithful are to do if it does, is terrifying, not least because it incidentally raises questions about whether the institutional Church was _ever_ the true Church (and then we _really_ start sounding like Luther).
So we come to this: is it better, or more Catholic, or whatever, to 1) say that that could never happen, or 2) to anticipate that it might happen and try to game out the appropriate actions in advance? I can certainly understand the mindset and the fears of those in the first camp. But I'm not sure that Catholic doctrine mandates their course.
Anon. 5: Isn’t there a third alternative? Namely:
(a) To wait upon events and particular circumstances instead of hypothesizing about scenarios in the abstract; then
(b) If actually faced with those events and circumstances, to engage in prayerful attempts to understand the reasons for positions and actions taken by the magisterium to which one in principle owes assent; and then, and only then,
(c) To respond as seems warranted after such efforts at discernment, always trusting in God’s mercy towards those who try, with proper humility, to follow the Truth (meaning, in the first instance, the currently articulated teachings of the visible Holy Mother Church), and always remembering, in this respect, the temptation to set oneself up as ultimate arbiter of what that Truth might be.
If, after all that, a Catholic in good conscience decides that the visible Church does not represent the true Church but that another group and its purported Pope does, perhaps that Catholic, even if in error, may be able to trust in God’s mercy. Similarly, if another Catholic decides to remain loyal to the visible Church and her Pope, may that Catholic, even if in error, not also be able to trust in God’s mercy?
Of course, I would much rather a priest weighed in on this issue because I feel myself unqualified even to express this much.
Anon 2, There is another option...the Hamlet option. LOL!
But think of the advantages of that option, Gene -- you can't make an Hamlet unless you pray kegs.
Anon 2, Do not be Lenin yourself to such weak humor. It Marx you as one to be Leared at...
My, my, Gene; we seem to be very grouchy this evening, harpin’ on about Communists and Shakespeare. It’s a tragedy really.
Hmmm...Shakespeare and the Communists...there is a book in there somewhere....
Post a Comment