You may remember when, on November 21, 1964, Saint Pope Paul VI declared Mary to be Mother of the Church, Mater Ecclesiae.
“We have felt it opportune to consecrate in this very public session, a title which was suggested in honor of the Virgin from various parts of the Catholic world and which is particularly dear to us because it sums up in an admirable synthesis the privileged position recognized by the council for the Virgin in the Holy Church. Therefore, for the glory of the Virgin Mary and for our own consolation, we proclaim the Most Blessed Mary Mother of the Church, that is to say of all the people of God, of the faithful as well as of the pastors, who call her the most loving Mother. And we wish that the Mother of God should be still more honored and invoked by the entire Christian people by this most sweet title.”
You may have heard the back story of this declaration, that there was a fierce argument among the bishops of the Second Vatican Council regarding the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, as to whether there should be a chapter on Mary at the end of the document or whether there should be a separate document for her. It was decided that she is essential to life of the Church and must be included in Lumen Gentium itself. Before this, Paul VI made the declaration above. The response was a standing ovation wrought by all present. There are various accounts, but it is said that the applause went on for some 12 minutes. If you’ve ever experienced a lengthy applause of over thirty seconds you know that by 45 seconds your hands are about to fall off. Twelve… Minutes…
You may remember that soon after Saint Pope John Paul II was shot in Saint Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981, he ordered that an image of our Lady be enshrined in Saint Peter’s Square. He wanted this to be Mary, Mother of the Church. A mosaic from Constantinian Basilica of Saint Peter’s, later in the Basilica designed by Michelangelo that we see today, was restored and ready by December 8, 1981 (pictured above).
You may remember that the residence of Pope Benedict XVI in the Vatican Gardens was called Mater Ecclesiae…
All of this speaks to a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
In mentioning the title Mary, Mother of the Church, to a group of priests many years ago, I was instantly reprimanded that this was not a traditional title of our Lady. I just as instantly mentioned passages in Sacred Scripture and in the lengthy Magisterium of the Church so as to emphasis that this is a most Catholic and proper title of our Lady. He wasn’t convinced. I mentioned the unanimous applause, acclamation if you will, of all the bishops as one. He said: Ah, yes, Vatican II, the beginning of the end of the Church. As he was saying this, he literally got up and ran away. Yep.
Mary, Mother of the Church, is especially the Mother of priests. Pray that our bishops and priests return from their flight from Calvary, and return to accompany Mary under the Cross, and then hear those words of Jesus, “Woman, behold, your son. Son, behold, your Mother.” Hail Mary…
In the Novus Ordo liturgical calendar, Mary, Mother of the Church, is an obligatory memorial as a feast which falls every year on the Monday following Pentecost Sunday, given that, most oddly, the Octave of Pentecost was suppressed. I very much love this new feast day for our Lady. I am saddened that the Octave of Pentecost was booted in favor of another spirit of Vatican II. Meanwhile, this year, the Monday following Pentecost was 29 May, which is the feast day, an optional memorial, of Saint Pope Paul VI. I find the coincidence of those two feast days, Paul VI and Mary, Mother of God, on the same day to be rather appropriate, given that he is the one who proclaimed this title back in 1964. Am I wrong?
“My spiritual testament – [29 August, 2006] – If in this late hour of my life I look back at the decades I have been through, first I see how many reasons I have to give thanks. First and foremost I thank God himself, the giver of every good gift, who gave me life and guided me through various confusing times; always picking me up whenever I began to slip and always giving me again the light of his face. In retrospect I see and understand that even the dark and tiring stretches of this journey were for my salvation and that it was in them that He guided me well.
“I thank my parents, who gave me life in a difficult time and who, at the cost of great sacrifice, with their love prepared for me a magnificent abode that, like clear light, illuminates all my days to this day. My father’s lucid faith taught us children to believe, and as a signpost it has always been steadfast in the midst of all my scientific acquisitions; the profound devotion and great goodness of my mother represent a legacy for which I can never give thanks enough. My sister has assisted me for decades selflessly and with affectionate care; my brother, with the lucidity of his judgments, his vigorous resolve and serenity of heart, has always paved the way for me; without this constant preceding and accompanying me I could not have found the right path.
“From my heart I thank God for the many friends, men and women, whom He has always placed at my side; for the collaborators in all the stages of my journey; for the teachers and students He has given me. I gratefully entrust them all to His goodness. And I want to thank the Lord for my beautiful homeland in the foothills of the Bavarian Alps, in which I have always seen the splendor of the Creator Himself shining through. I thank the people of my homeland because in them I have been able again and again to experience the beauty of faith. I pray that our land remains a land of faith, and I beg you, dear countrymen: Do not let yourselves be turned away from the faith. And finally I thank God for all the beauty I have been able to experience at all the phases of my journey, especially, however, in Rome and in Italy, which has become my second homeland.
“To all those whom I have wronged in any way, I heartily ask for forgiveness.
“What I said before to my countrymen, I now say to all those in the Church who have been entrusted to my service: Stand firm in the faith! Do not let yourselves be confused! It often seems that science — the natural sciences on the one hand and historical research (especially exegesis of Sacred Scripture) on the other — are able to offer irrefutable results at odds with the Catholic faith. I have experienced the transformations of the natural sciences since long ago and have been able to see how, on the contrary, apparent certainties against the faith have vanished, proving to be not science, but philosophical interpretations only apparently pertaining to science; just as, on the other hand, it is in dialogue with the natural sciences that faith, too, has learned to understand better the limit of the scope of its claims, and thus its specificity. It is now sixty years that I have been accompanying the journey of Theology, particularly of the Biblical Sciences, and with the succession of different generations I have seen theses that seemed unshakable collapse, proving to be mere hypotheses: the liberal generation (Harnack, Jülicher etc.), the existentialist generation (Bultmann etc.), the Marxist generation. I saw and see how out of the tangle of assumptions the reasonableness of faith emerged and emerges again. Jesus Christ is truly the way, the truth and the life – and the Church, with all its insufficiencies, is truly His body.
“Finally, I humbly ask: Pray for me, so that the Lord, despite all my sins and insufficiencies, welcomes me into the eternal dwellings. To all those entrusted to me, day by day, my heartfelt prayer goes out.”
//// Analysis
My perspective and therefore my reception of this is slightly different from that of others. It seems it is the practice to obtain a Last Testament from any newly reigning Supreme Pontiff. There are those who insult these words, call them into doubt, but they seem to me to be exactly what Ratzinger, newly Benedict, would say as someone for whom death did not seem to be imminent. It was going on 17 years before he would, in fact, die. Is there a later, last Last Testament? I don’t know. This one speaks to me quite personally.
It is clear that not just the weight of the Pontificate had descended upon him, but he was seeing with the eye of the supreme pastor the consequences of any and all of his erroneous academic opinions of a lifetime were having upon the Lord’s little flock. As supreme pontiff, he was now supremely responsible for his opinions in a very personal way before the Absolute Truth, Christ Jesus. And he gently wants to make his example of conversion that which others can follow right to Jesus.
This is the testament of a consummate academic providing not any apologia so as to defend himself, but rather a mea culpa from a fellow pilgrim in faith and a pastor in trepidation (cf St Augustine), offering to the faithful a retraction of most everything in his life as peritus and professor.
This is not a sign of weakness, of an old man turned into a simpleton, an imbecile. No, no. This retraction is the German Shepherd at his finest. In almost unfathomable humility he has turned on himself so as feed the lambs, tend the sheep, pasture the flock. To offer such retractions at the end of one’s life is ever so Catholic. Benedict XVI is a student also of Augustine, and Augustine had his retractions. Augustine spoke of his desire for this project: “To gather together and point out, in a work devoted to this express purpose, all the things which most justly displease me in my books.”
Before jumping to conspiracy theories that this is a forgery, or that his last Last Testament has already been burned, perhaps we ought to do what real academics do, which is to ask which answer is the most simple, responding to the most questions with the most consistency and with no complications to hide behind. My question is this: Why did he retain this Last Testament for 16+ years? I think he did this because it perfectly summed up what he wanted to say.
At the time, I had been loudly complaining to my fellow scripture scholars that I was attacking a saint (Pope Benedict XVI) in my not-quite-yet-defended thesis on Genesis 2:4a-3:24. With excruciating scientific examination of texts I provided an explication of the biblical foundation concerning the transmission of original sin by propagation not imitation, thus explicitly contradicting Ratzinger’s 1986 highly emotional heretical sermon which condemned the doctrine of original sin as that which charges God of being a commandant of an extermination camp. Six pontifical universities were closely following the progress of my thesis, but more than this, so were some friends.
Was it a friend of mine, Benedict’s sacramental Confessor, who brought my worries and protestations – and thesis – to his attention, as I had asked him to do? I wasn’t at that meeting, but from what I gather, that was the case.
Was it a… I’m being careful here… a longtime assistant of Benedict and mutual friend of many decades for both Benedict and me who brought this to him? I wasn’t there, but I had insisted, and from what I gather, that’s what happened.
Was my published thesis some months later brought forthwith to Benedict by yet another longtime friend and a close collaborator of Benedict on the terzo piano? Yes, 100%, but with his protestation that I shouldn’t look on this as any kind of attack (which was never my intention), but as a necessary act of charity (which was always my intention). For his part, he promised to try his best to bring about something even more, which is that I also be granted a private audience with Benedict.
Was this sent to Benedict by myself but with the blessings and encouragement of Dom Gérard Calvet, OSB, founder of the abbey of Sainte-Madeleine du Barroux in Vaucluse, France? Yes. With a two-page un-ignorable letter. I sent that 30 September, Feast of Saint Jerome, and a response came back 8 October, Birthday of Immaculate Mary.
Benedict XVI already had in mind what he would do at Lourdes, France, on September 14, 2008, at his Angelus address, that is, to utterly reverse an entire lifetime of heretical thought on original sin, which had infiltrated, if you will, all of his Scripture studies, all of his theology, philosophy, his cultural perspective. He changes his mind on this, he changes his mind on everything. This changed everything. Now he was free. This Last Testament is sufficient. In Lourdes, he spoke of the Immaculate Conception with no ambiguity, no loopholes by which to retain any of his former perspective. Really, that text is extremely careful: no loopholes, no ambiguity. He was a new man.
His summary sentence in his retractiones, his Last Testament, is precisely the summary of my comments in my thesis about where he needed to be in heart and soul and mind and strength:
“Jesus Christ is truly the way, the truth and the life – and the Church, with all its insufficiencies, is truly His body.”
This speaks to me of his almost unfathomable humility. This speaks to me most personally.
And about Benedict XVI, this affirms for me 1000% that he is a gentleman, a scholar, a believer in Christ Jesus, as he always was, however falteringly. In this he gives us the example of how to be a Christian, how to be a follower of Christ Jesus, how to be a priest, a pontiff.
Look, I’m not saying for a second that anything I had to say back in the day had anything to do with his Last Testament. No. I’m just saying that what he said speaks to me personally, and with reason. Just circumstantial. But it is what it is.
And having said that… This is how real this is for me… I now use this as an an examination of conscience in my own life, my own wretched life. How I long to have a smidgeon of Benedict’s humility before Jesus.
A Hail Mary for the repose of his soul… Hail Mary…
A Hail Mary in his honor beseeching his intercession… Hail Mary…
Non solum propter tres canonizationes ad hoc Consistorium vos convocavi, sed etiam ut vobis decisionem magni momenti pro Ecclesiae vita communicem. Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.
Bene conscius sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. Attamen in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est, qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam. Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse.
Fratres carissimi, ex toto corde gratias ago vobis pro omni amore et labore, quo mecum pondus ministerii mei portastis et veniam peto pro omnibus defectibus meis. Nunc autem Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam curae Summi eius Pastoris, Domini nostri Iesu Christi confidimus sanctamque eius Matrem Mariam imploramus, ut patribus Cardinalibus in eligendo novo Summo Pontifice materna sua bonitate assistat. Quod ad me attinet etiam in futuro vita orationi dedicata Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei toto ex corde servire velim.
Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 10 mensis februarii MMXIII
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
Dear Brothers,
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
From the Vatican, 10 February 2013
BENEDICTUS PP XVI
PART I – The renouncement of Benedict XVI is valid
You have heard that it was said that the vocabulary and syntax of this renouncement are ambiguous with “Bishop of Rome” and “Successor of Peter” being placed in some sort of unknown apposition even while the word “ministry” is not at all the required technical vocabulary that must be used in order for such a renouncement to be valid. Except, consider this question:
Does the word “ministry” refer to only one or to all three aspects of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter as (1) prophet, (2) priest, and (3) king, thus regarding (1) the truth of doctrine and morality, (2) the sacrifice of the One High Priest, Jesus Christ, (3) the fatherly governance of the family of faith on earth.
Text without context is pretext, right? The context is that at the stated time, the fact of “the See of Rome,” and the fact of “the See of Saint Peter,” which are inclusive of all three, will be vacated by the person who up to that time was the “Bishop of Rome” and “Successor of Peter.” This covers for the lack of technical vocabulary; the weirdness of the apposition is inescapably rectified by the parallel.
So, the renouncement is valid, and there began to be a sede vacante in 2013, but is there still a sede vacante today? What about Francis?
PART II – Is the election of Francis valid?
The discussion of Cardinals before a Conclave is very important. It is to consist of Cardinals sharing with each other what they themselves believe any future Pope is to believe, what any future Pope’s priorities should be in this time in which we live.
They are not to promise anything like “If I were Pope I would…”
Likewise, they are absolutely to avoid anything like “I’ll vote for you if only you promise to…”
The latter two are electioneering. There are number of questions:
If Jorge Bergoglio participated in electioneering, does that invalidate the Conclave? Even if he did this with only one Cardinal, word spreads, and you have to take that one incident as if it were done with all electors. It doesn’t matter if he initiated that conversation or it was initiated by even just one of the Cardinals. Does what Jorge Bergoglio did invalidate his election?
Do his repeated statements that he has fulfilled in his time in Rome what the Cardinals asked of him before the Conclave rise to the level of electioneering? And was anything asked of him, or were they just expressing opinions generally, and he’s anachronistically just reporting that which he now thinks has fallen to him?
Even if he says “Cardinals” in the plural, is that just one or two, or really very many? Does the invalidity of an election depend on just one or two compromised Cardinals? Do we really know the numbers? I wasn’t there. Will we ever know? Can we ever know?
It seems to me that a commission of Cardinals convened for the purpose of answering such questions may be a good idea. Is that likely? Who would make up that Commission these days? Can they put the electors of time under oath? How many have died or are utterly incapacitated since then? This is not easy.
Whose name do I recite in the Roman Canon or in any Eucharistic Prayer, or in any intercessions for the Pope?
Francis.
Benedict’s renunciation was valid. Francis’ election hasn’t been proven to be invalid.
It is what it is.
Correct me if you can. I am most open to correction.
So, my rejection of Traditionis custodes has stunned some nice people (far away from my parish, mind you). The way I see it, Traditionis custodes is an evil law, and therefore, as Saint Thomas Aquinas says, is no law at all, and is not to be obeyed or disobeyed, just ignored, for it is nothing.
“But Father George! Father George! I’m stunned! How can you say anything from the Great Pope Francis is evil?! He’s the Pope, and you’re not! Pope Francis is infallible in everything he says and does and thinks and emotes about! How dare you!? How dare you!?” How dare you!? I’m stunned!”
Well, there are any number of reasons why Traditionis custodes is evil. I will give just two examples here, as they suffice to demonstrate the evil nature of that “document,” papal as it may be, even if that is stunning for the less clever amongst us.
1. THE “THROW-JESUS-OUT” EVIL
“Art. 3. § 2. […] the faithful adherents of these groups may gather for the eucharistic celebration (not however in the parochial churches and without the erection of new personal parishes).”
While Jesus is happy to be with His Little Flock for the Sacrifice of the Mass in times of persecution at a “Mass Rock” or at a “Priest Hole” (a secret chapel a Catholic family might construct in their home), or in a bunk in Dachau or Auschwitz, it is inappropriate for any bishop even of Rome to throw Jesus off His own altar and out of His own church just to be politically correct.
In the case of my parish, we would have to move to the filthy slimy community center of the town. Vomit, vomit. I can’t do it. I can’t throw Jesus out just because I’m offering the Ancient Rite of Mass. It’s not right. It’s evil. Ain’t gonna happen, except in the case of a persecution under Cromwell, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao.
There are some in the world at large who have gone against Pope Francis in both the letter and spirit of the motu proprio, and have declared such law to be null and void in their (arch)dioceses or their territorial entities. Interesting. Stunning even. They have a “reason.” I wonder if anyone else can have a reason to cast aside Traditionis custodes entirely. Let’s move on:
2. THE “ANCIENT-RITE-IS-NOT-MASS-AT-ALL” EVIL
LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS TO THE BISHOPS OF THE WHOLE WORLD, THAT ACCOMPANIES THE APOSTOLIC LETTER MOTU PROPRIO DATA “TRADITIONIS CUSTODES” Official translation Rome, 16 July 2021
[[[ At the end of paragraph six and the beginning of seven, we see that the lex orandi, the law of prayer, is common to whatever rites of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, such as the “ordinary” and “extraordinary” forms of the Roman Rite (as Benedict XVI called them), for, he insisted the Sacrifice of the Sacrifice of the Mass is the lex orandi.]]]
“Benedict XVI declared “the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and newly edited by Blessed John XXIII, as a extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi”, granting a “more ample possibility for the use of the 1962 Missal”. [6]
“In making their decision they were confident that such a provision would not place in doubt one of the key measures of Vatican Council II or minimize in this way its authority: the Motu proprio recognized that, in its own right, “the Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite”. [7] The recognition of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V “as an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi” did not in any way underrate the liturgical reform, but was decreed with the desire to acknowledge the “insistent prayers of these faithful,” allowing them “to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the editio typica of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as the extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”. [8]”
[6] Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 797.
[7] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.
[8] Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter given Motu proprio “ Summorum Pontificum”, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 779.
APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED “MOTU PROPRIO” BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS «TRADITIONIS CUSTODES»
[[[But then, in Art. 1 of Traditionis custodes itself, we read that the Ancient Rite is not part of the lex orandi, has no claim to validly present the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore is no Mass at all.]]]
Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
[[[My comment: If the consecrations are not now valid for the Ancient Rite, bringing about the Holy Sacrifice, then they never were valid, nor are any consecrations valid for any rite of Holy Mass, whether Novus Ordo or any other Latin or Eastern Rite liturgies. None. This is evil. Therefore it is not a law. Stunning, isn’t it? It’s not rocket science. But still, some nice people insist that they are stunned:]]]
It’s like the papabile guy, the The String Puller For All®, telling me that Jesus being crucified was a kind of failure on His part. That’s what Judas thought, right?
I’m guessing that this guy is a good 4 centimeters, just over 1.5 inches long. He didn’t let me get too close, but I swear I saw the bits pictured at the center bottom of the chart below, the pigeon tremex character. The markings, however, are not similar. But I’m in Western North Carolina, in the Smoky Mountains, not in Washington State. The center white dot is a reflection of the sun on the hard shell.
I’m always, always fascinated by the good creation of our Good Creator. And that doesn’t make me an ecoterrorist, or a green-party wild man, but rather one who sees the Creator also through His Creation.
Saint Paul in his epistle to the Romans, the famous chapter one, and then chapter two, speaks of this for us. Read it!
;-)
Meanwhile, here in Western North Carolina, in the back ridges of Appalachia, it’s a paradise: praise God!
Some don’t seem to see it at all, trashing up everything everywhere, shooting up heroin, taking meth and Fentanyl, beating on each other – even decapitations – loving the power of cynicism.
But many do see, as it were, God through His Creation, bringing to the fore the living memory of the first creation only through the living memory of the second creation: “Do this in memory of me…”
Once we have the second, we can get to the first, but then realize that it’s all even better:
O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem.
O happy fault which merited such a great Redeemer.
Want a good read of just a few pages? Try Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s address to the USCCB in 1991:
Recall is diminishing for me regarding my browsing through the stacks of the Canon Law collections of the various campuses of the North American College in Rome. I’m not a Canon Lawyer. But I was interested at the time in figuring out Ratzinger’s controversial opinions and apparent flip-flopping after ferocious corrections by others on the topic of, say, a layman becoming Pope, and whether or not he would have, after a verified election, the capacity to posit valid legislative acts that of themselves involve any differences in munus and ministry, that is, without that new Supreme Pontiff becoming a bishop. Yes, then, No, or, kind of? I found such articles / commentary in various volumes of a still-being-published series of commentaries (blue hard cover edition). I may not remember that correctly, so don’t beat me up too badly. In light of the weird circumstances that surrounded the resignation / abdication (whatever) of Benedict XVI, in light of the strange statements of his secretary about a kind of bifurcated papacy, in light of there being such insistence on there being but one pope (Francis) but another kind of spiritual pope (Benedict), etc., I’m just wondering if there is some sort of vague precedent in the academic ruminations of Ratzinger for what happened in 2013 and is still haunting us today.
Just my own scenario: what if you divide the mandates of governing, sanctifying and teaching, so that the “active” pope takes the governing and sanctifying (regardless of whether he actually does that), while the other retains the teaching capacity, that is, the burden of being infallible. Francis didn’t get the memo on that, at all. In his speech on the 50th anniversary of the Synods of Bishops he said he fully intends to pronounce an ex-cathedra infallible statement, which I think he will attempt to do at the end of the Synod on Synods. He lead up to that by his own specious re-write of Vatican Council II’s Lumen gentium, having it that everyone is infallible (definitely more than was stated by that Constitution).
Regardless of my failing memory of briefly glancing over articles that were out of my wheelhouse so many decades ago, and regardless of whatever Ratzinger intended then or in 2013, I’m not saying this has anything to do with the confusing situation in which we find ourselves. But maybe there is some connection, some line of thought, that can be followed through the academic opinions of Ratzinger, then Benedict, then someone “emeritus.” I don’t know. If I had the chance to browse through the stacks of Canon Law rooms of dedicated libraries I would do it again. But none of those exist in the back ridges of Appalachia.
Perhaps someone has the wherewithal to find those articles one way or another…
[[[ This following is a transcript of a talk by Alexis. I don’t know him. Some attack him. Whatever. I’m just interested in the argument he has here about the technical terms “ministry” and “munus.” Does it make a difference? Leave your comments. I’m no Canon Lawyer, but I’m willing to be schooled either way. Before you kill this guy, read the comments exchange at the end. ]]]
Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo (31 October 2019)
[…] Though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.
Only in America would some kid think that wearing a dog collar would be privilege.
For those keyboard warriors wanting to tell me that that was merely humor, well, what I responded with is humor on top of the humor! Lighten up!
On a more serious note, there are those who can treat clergy as the scum of the earth, expendable for the sake of protecting their own little protected worlds. It is impossible, they think, that anything bad happens, ever.
I guess they also think that Saint Paul is a fool:
“We work hard with our own hands. When we are vilified, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer gently. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world. (1 Corinthians 4:12-13)
Paul waxes nostalgic about his time with the Lord Jesus…
“…in harder labor, in more imprisonments, in worse beatings, in frequent danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked. I spent a night and a day in the open sea. In my frequent journeys, I have been in danger from rivers and from bandits, in danger from my countrymen and from the Gentiles, in danger in the city and in the country, in danger on the sea and among false brothers, in labor and toil and often without sleep, in hunger and thirst and often without food, in cold and exposure. Apart from these external trials, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not burn with grief? (2 Corinthians 11:24-28)
Saint Paul calls himself not merely a fool, but a fool for Christ’s sake. I know plenty of priests who would think that Paul is a fool for not being a man of consensus, that he foolishly brought all that upon himself. The real fools never once think about witnessing for Christ’s sake, that risking all for Jesus is impossible, and that anyone who does that is a fool. I see it, actually, all the time, especially when there is danger from false brethren. NO! they shriek. You’re just a fool.
Let’s turn to a post of yore about coats of arms. In that post, Cardinal Burke’s article on the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI is cited at length, emphasizing the joys of being a total jackass.
Recall that Saint Corbinian’s bear on the coat of arms of Benedict XVI was actually a donkey, that is, fulfilling the role of the donkey after he killed the donkey. Benedict called himself that “donkey”. No, really. A Pope who is a jackass. Luther, with great malice, called the Pope of the time a jackass. Benedict is from Germany. Anyway, see the outrageously wonderful 2005 article of Archbishop Raymond Burke about the newly elected Pope Donkey, Benedict XVI. And then, to those of you who are fuming mad and flinging the rest of us into hell in all the mortal sin you suppose I and Ratzinger and Burke are in for speaking of the papacy being filled with the likes of a jackass, to you I say, lighten up. Have some Christian mirth. Some irony. Rejoice! The Lord is good and kind. Again, I will say it: Rejoice! My coat of arms, breaking all the rules of heraldry, as any donkey might do, so far:
This recalls the Discalced Carmelite coat of arms:
I think Tom Clancy wrote on the etiquette of sword ceremonial. What is the military symbolism of the sword held high as with Elijah or with Saint Michael atop Castel Sant’Angelo who is sheathing his sword? What of ceremonial stuff, like the the sword being held straight up or pointed upward or straight down or pointed downward? Anyone?
Benedict XVI was Pope. Cardinal Burke could well be Pope soon. I’ll never be, but I’m happy to have a donkey on my coat of arms anyway! Just in case that article by Cardinal Burke disappears, I include the bit towards the end commenting on Pope Benedict XVI as being a Jackass:
[…] In his memoirs published in 1997, then-Cardinal Ratzinger commented on his life as a bishop, reflecting upon the image of the bear of St. Corbinian, founding bishop of Freising, the ancient see which is now the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, to which Cardinal Ratzinger was called to serve as archbishop. He relates the story to a meditation of St. Augustine on the text of verses 22 and 23 of Psalm 73 (72). St. Corbinian’s bear:
As the story goes, St. Corbinian was on his way to Rome when a bear attacked and killed his pack animal, his donkey. St. Corbinian rebuked the bear and placed the load of the donkey upon his back to carry to Rome. The story of the bear of St. Corbinian reminded the cardinal of St. Augustine’s meditation on the verses of Psalm 73 which he translates thusly: “A draft animal am I before you, for you, and this is precisely how I abide with you” (Psalm 73:22-23; Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, page 155). The cardinal, like St. Augustine, had chosen the life of a scholar, but God called him to take up the burdens of the episcopal office, eventually serving the Holy Father as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He comments on the frustrations which St. Augustine experienced in dealing with the many practical concerns of a pastor of souls, when he had in mind to carry out great intellectual and spiritual works. The text of the psalm reminded the saint and reminded Cardinal Ratzinger that God chose to keep them close to Him by having them serve as His “draft animals,” carrying out the humble tasks of the pastoral office, rather than the exalted service which they had in mind for themselves. Relating the meditation of St. Augustine to the story of St. Corbinian’s bear, Cardinal Ratzinger comments: “Just as the draft animal is closest to the farmer, doing his work for him, so is Augustine closest to God precisely through such humble service, completely within God’s hand, completely His instrument.He could not be closer to his Lord or be more important to Him. The laden bear that took the place of St. Corbinian’s horse, or rather donkey — the bear that became his donkey against its will: Is this not an image of what I should do and of what I am?”A beast of burden have I become for you, and this is just the way for me to remain wholly yours and always abide with you” (Milestones, pages 156-157). Tonight, we thank God for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who has found his happiness in serving as Christ’s “donkey,” His “draft animal,” who has given his entire self to working humbly and steadfastly with Christ in the vineyard of the Father. When we see the image of the bear of St. Corbinian on his coat-of-arms, may we be reminded of how he has given and gives his life in service to Christ and His Church. Assisting our Holy Father with his burdens Conscious of the many and heavy burdens which our Holy Father carries, with Christ, for us, let us assist him, offering him the joy of our faithful prayers, loyal affection and unfailing obedience. Our Holy Father, in continuity with the teaching and direction of his much beloved predecessor Pope John Paul II, has already given us an indication of his desires for our growth in holiness of life.In his first address to the College of Cardinals on the day after his election, Pope Benedict XVI stated that the Holy Eucharist “cannot but be the permanent center and the source of the petrine service entrusted to [him]” (Benedict XVI, a pope of Christ, communion, collegiality, Vatican Information Service, April 20, 2005, page 2). Reflecting upon Divine Providence, which called him to the office of St. Peter during the Year of the Eucharist, he has asked that the Solemnity of Corpus Christi “be celebrated in a particularly special way.”He reminded us that the celebration of World Youth Day in Cologne in August will center on the Holy Eucharist, and that the Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, to be held this coming October, will devote itself to the theme: “The Eucharist, Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church.”He concluded with a solemn request addressed to us all: “I ask everyone to intensify in coming months love and devotion to the Eucharistic Jesus and to express in a courageous and clear way the real presence of the Lord, above all through the solemnity and the correctness of the celebrations” (Benedict XVI, a pope of Christ, communion, collegiality, Vatican Information Service, April 20, 2005, page 3). As we thank God tonight for the gift of Pope Benedict XVI, let us help him shoulder his heavy burdens by deepening and strengthening our knowledge and love of the Holy Eucharist, above all by the piety with which we participate in Holy Mass, and adore and worship the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass. As we are now united sacramentally to the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, let us lift up to His glorious and open Heart the intentions of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. Placing our Holy Father and his intentions into the all-merciful and all-loving Heart of Jesus, we trust that no grace will be lacking to our Holy Father as he pours out his life, with Christ, as Christ’s “donkey”for our salvation and the salvation of our world. We ask the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul to pray with us for our Holy Father: “The Lord preserve him and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies” (Enchiridion of Indulgences, June 29, 1968, no. 39). Conclusion I hope that the text of my homily has helped you in some way to understand the office of St. Peter and the deep trust in Divine Providence with which Pope Benedict XVI has accepted the office from our Lord.He is the humble worker in the vineyard, Christ’s “draft animal” who seeks only to do God’s will. Let us continue to assist our Holy Father by our daily prayers.I ask especially that you remember the intentions of our Holy Father when you pray the rosary. […]
And… and… if Chesterton still has anything to say about it, behold:
When fishes flew and forests walked And figs grew upon thorn, Some moment when the moon was blood Then surely I was born;
With monstrous head and sickening cry And ears like errant wings, The devil’s walking parody On all four-footed things.
The tattered outlaw of the earth, Of ancient crooked will; Starve, scourge, deride me: I am dumb, I keep my secret still.
Fools! For I also had my hour; One far fierce hour and sweet: There was a shout about my ears, And palms before my feet.
ARISE! LET US BE GOING! 