I’m going to try to offer a short reflection on the explosion of reactions to Pope Francis. Perhaps if I put it in list form, that will force me to be more succinct than I otherwise would be.
- I believe that this conversation that is happening is being shaped, in a negative way, by the fact that Pope Emeritus Benedict is still alive. I think that if Pope Francis’ pontificate – what little of it there has been so far – less than a week – had occurred in the wake of Benedict’s death, the general tone would be more subdued, shaded as it would be by a period of grief and mourning and probably sympathy for a dying Pope. Instead there is what I’m going to come straight out and call a tone of “relief.” It seems to spill over from the normal level of interest in and hope that any new papacy evokes onto another level. Half of the Facebook posts on my newsfeed seem to begin with “At last!” or “Finally!” I don’t think this would be happening if Benedict were dead. It’s weird.
- I’m startled by the number of people who are under the impression that Pope Benedict neglected to mention Jesus Christ, mercy or the poor during his pontificate. Who don’t understand the substantial reforms Pope Benedict undertook over the past few years. So for example: Pope Francis mentioned the danger of the Church becoming seen as just another NGO, to wide acclaim – from some of the same quarters who have looked askance at Pope Benedict making exactly the same points – and putting them into action (as in his actions, for example, regarding Caritas last year ). The post below this one tweaks that reflex – and it’s a reflex to be aware of.
- Liturgical conversations have resurfaced with a vengeance over the past few days. Just a few points there: A few days ago, a church historian was quoted as saying, “You have to remember that Benedict was a clotheshorse.” What that expert fails to recognize was that Benedict’s attention to papal garb was not about vanity – I mean – really. It was about what he was always about: history And not history as a museum, out of an antiquarian interest, but as a link from the present to the past. The red shoes – so maligned even by Catholics who should know better – are a symbol of blood. Blood , people. The blood of the martyrs and the blood of Christ on which His vicar stands, and through him, all of us. Popes – yes, even John XXIII and Paul VI – wore them until John Paul II stopped. Then Benedict reinstated them. That is, he humbled himself before history and symbol and put the darn things on.
- Why did he reinstate them? Because he was vain, monarchical and arrogant? Because he was out of touch with the poor? Because he was, in the terms of the esteemed professor, a “clotheshorse?” Because they look good? I doubt it, because, you know, they don’t, not really. Maybe – just maybe – because he believes was they symbolize? That his office is rooted in the blood of the martyrs, especially Peter? And that it is good for the Pope in the 21st century to maintain this link to and through other Popes who have done the same thing, to Peter, and then to Christ?
- But hardly anyone even bothered to go that far. Just think if we had. Just think if more of us had been open to being taught by these gestures and symbols and instead of reflexively looking askance at it because it is culturally distant from us, had asked these questions and let them inform our faith – our own willingness to be martyred, to give our lives and our hearts to Christ and his people.
- For me, it comes down to this. Both of these Popes were and are pastors. Both have given their lives for us, for Christ. We can – and should be open to being – taught by both. All I’m saying is that – as Pope Francis himself has acknowledged in his own words these past few days – Pope Benedict was all about Christ. He spent 8 years as your Pope, “proposing Jesus Christ” through his words and actions – even his red shoes. If Pope Francis’ actions so far preach Christ more clearly to you then so be it. Christ is who is important, and we are a Church of great diversity for a reason. But what has been so bizarre and even saddening over the past few days is a tone and implication that Benedict was somehow about something else besides Jesus Christ.
- There is much more to say on liturgy, and plenty of people are saying it, mostly from positions of uncertainty and fear. I have nothing to say about those specific worries because it’s all a complete unknown at this point. Who knows what will happen. My hope is that there are clearly huge problems in the Church that need attention. The liturgy, as reset by Benedict, is not one of those problems, but that’s just the way it seems to me.
- But one more comment on those conversations – the reactions to the reactions to the reactions – that are flying about. Here’s what is important to remember. The “changes” that Benedict made to the liturgical direction of the Church are not expressions of his aesthetic or taste. What Benedict did was to implement the Church’s liturgy in the Church’s practice. There are documents. Decrees and such. Books. Rubrics. Believe it or not, Benedict’s reset button was really nothing more than pointing us to what we are supposed to be doing anyway. If you don’t believe me, read them yourself. There is a deeper theological and spiritual reasoning and structure as well, but really, the basic goal was: fidelity to what the Church offers. If you read Ratzinger on liturgy, his thinking is quite pastoral. It basically comes down to: Every Catholic has the right to the Church’s liturgy.
- I’m not interested in debating the liturgical direction of Pope Francis, because I have no idea what that is, and besides..why? What I am interested in is that the discussion, which is inevitably coming back around to Pope Benedict’s liturgical work, be grounded in truth about what that was really about. The great thing about the Roman liturgy is (believe it or not) its flexibility. It can be celebrated from the back of a pickup truck in a field or in a Gothic Cathedral. It can be celebrated with no music or a polyphonic choir and everything in between. But – the Roman liturgy is also not formless. Benedict’s liturgical work was oriented towards reacquainting us with that form and deep spiritual substructure, not for its own sake but for the sake of the seeker encountering Christ there.
- And I hope that’s it for me on that score. I vow not to be one of those people. That is, like folks who never could quite get it through their heads, even by 2012, that John Paul II wasn’t pope anymore. Promise you, and I promise myself.
Thank you for this post. I have been feeling guilty about my excitement over Pope Francis. I think that Benedict was a great pope, and I admire his humility in stepping down when he realized that he is no longer physically up to the task. Pope John Paul II was the only pope I had any memory of, so I definitely did not rejoice when Benedict was elected. As you say, I was in mourning. I never really connected with Benedict, but that was not a reflection on him. I have felt an instant connection to Pope Francis, and I’m sure that much of that can be attributed to the context of his election. I took Pope John Paul II for granted when he was with us. I never bonded with Benedict and therefore didn’t appreciate him as much as I should have. Now I finally have a chance to truly appreciate our pope in the moment, and I’m grateful for it. But I also want to make a point of taking many opportunities to point out that my joy over our new pope does not mean that I’m joyful about saying goodbye to his predecessor.
Thank you, Amy!
I have to admit that I am struggling with my feelings in transferring loyalty from Benedict to Pope Francis precisely because Benedict is still alive. And it is difficult not to want to be defensive of the Pope Emeritus when others are painting Pope Francis as a clean and refreshing break from his predecessor. On an emotional level, Benedict is still “my” Pope because he is still around and I guess I haven’t completely and emotionally come to grips with his decision to “retire”.
I do like what I’ve heard so far from Pope Francis, especially his homily about preaching Christ crucified. And he’s only been Pope for 5 days at this point, so we just have to wait to see how it all plays out. And, in the end, I’m Catholic and I’ll be loyal to the Pope, whoever he is,
But I sincerely hope that the Holy Father’s decision to eschew certain things favored by his predecessor is truly just a matter of doing things at his own comfort level and is not his way of saying “There’s a new sheriff in town.” I have to say that exercises in self-conscious humility – especially if they are done at the expense of someone who is allegedly less “humble” in an “I’m different than the other guy” sort of way – are rather a turn-off for me. I’m not saying that’s what the Holy Father is doing (and I highly doubt that’s what he’s doing), but it is certainly being spun that way in certain quarters.
I think I probably wouldn’t have these concerns if Benedict weren’t still alive and I didn’t, therefore, feel some residual loyalty toward him and a compulsion to defend him.
You really nailed it, Amy. In particular, this statement needs to be repeated using large banner headlines:
“What Benedict did was to implement the Church’s liturgy in the Church’s practice. There are documents. Decrees and such. Books. Rubrics. Believe it or not, Benedict’s reset button was really nothing more than pointing us to what we are supposed to be doing anyway.”
Thank you.
Excellent post! Thank you for sharing your wise thoughts, Amy!
I’ll be a broken record and say “thank you for your post”, Amy.
While I love our new Papa, I must admit I am uneasy with all the praise being heaped on him-well deserved as they are.
Papa Benedict may not have been as simple in dress and outgoing as dear Pope Francis, but that didn’t make him a bad Pope.
Anyway, thanks for your blog. It’s great.
Anna Maria
Amen, Amy. Amen.
Actually, I thought the red shoes looked great :)
Can’t some of this be chalked up to personal style? John Paul II eschewed much of this. (He never wore the mozzetta after his first appearance on the loggia. And he loved his Doc Martens.) I, for one, don’t think that we should live nor die by the color of shoes nor the placement of candlesticks. It is a big church.
I do think it is easier to talk credibly about the poor while not wearing ermine, however…. (Not that Benedict was not credible. I love his writings and especially his homilies. That is not what I’m saying. Only that the visible symbols matter.)
And if paying one’s bills is a signal to the Vatican bureaucrats that they should not expect lives of preferential treatment, I’m not going to complain.
If Francis doesn’t want to live in the Vatican bubble quite so much, that is all to the good.
I think that he has an endearing style. Not the high energy stage presence of John Paul II (which had its place), not the scholarly gentleness of Benedict (ditto), but a sort of cozy “Let me tell you a story” casualness that is not a bad thing.
As anyone running a parish knows, one person is not going to appeal to everyone. An extroverted pastor should be balanced by a more introverted associate. Many people tell me that I help them understand things they didn’t quite ‘get’ from the pulpit, but I’m assuming an equal number roll their eyes and say, “There she goes again.”
Why should this be any different with popes?
Also converts especially need to discern that Pope Benedict did not have a vow of poverty ( ergo the large book collection) and Pope Francis does have a vow of poverty. The latter will be trying to keep that vow in many little details. He will not be thus commenting on Benedict therein. He’s just trying to keep his vow. If he refuses to have a group of cooks and maids, it will be because of his interpretation of that vow…not that he thought Benedict prodigal in this area. The Cistercians and Carmelites bifurcated into two groups each over such things…the common observance and the strict observance. Trappists are Cistercians of the Strict Observance. Pope Francis may be a mini Jesuit example of what a stricter Jesuit looks like on questions of signing poverty.
I am absolutely excited. As I converted to a both/and not an either/or Church I am really at peace. I can’t understand the foolishness coming from either ‘side’. Amen, Amy and thanks for the balance. My own shot at balance is here should anyone be interested and it’s still there should anyone not be interested :)
Great Post
thank you Amy. I grew to love and pray for Benedict and was heartbroken when he decided to resign. Before the election of Francis I was fearful, not trusting the Holy Spirit. I think this came mostly from listening to the media spin. Francis was a wonderful surprise. I learned two things – the power of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of our Cardinals. My biggest fear was ‘I love Benedict, but can I learn to love another’. Yes, it is not a choice between one or the other, but both .
Supurb post, Amy! It is as if you read my mind over what has been happening over the past week. You’ve provided clarifications to so many things that I’ve noticed and reflected upon. Pax tecum!
I hope everyone has tweeted and/or posted this on Facebook already. It needs to be read and discussed. Thank you, Amy.
Well said! And a sweet loyal tribute to dear Benedict, the world’s most unassuming man, seriously.
Pope Francis has already been very inspiring. I have no doubt that his intuitive, direct and folksy ways will attract people to him, and through him, to Christ.
I ‘think” what Amy was reminding us is that Benedict was always teaching us profound truths through his actions, his words and through visual signs. “Red shoes are a symbol of “Blood, people”! That’s a very powerful symbol not to be taken lightly. (Owen, they were NOT Prada!). These were NOT superficial acts. We understood that Benedict was always pointing AWAY from himself, but TOWARDS Christ.
I don’t think that Francis is doing things in a simpler way as a rejection of Benedict, or an absurd implication that the emeritus pope was frivolous in his dress. It probably has something to do with being a Jesuit, a Latin American, and a man now known as “Francis”. But unfortunately some are interpreting them as such. It would be a tragic loss if it was the take-away from his actions. The backlash would be hurtful and a tremendous disservice to both men.
Not everyone connected with Benedict in the immediate way that they did with John Paul or now, with Francis. Perhaps because it required a bigger investment of time to read through his exquisite talks. But, OH! what a reward it was! For this reason, those who did bond with him did so in a very deep, affectionate and committed way that is already bearing tremendous fruit. Artists and musicians and intellectuals have formed groups to help us find ways to use our gifts to help with evangelization and to glorify God. This reawakening of a longing for beauty will have a lasting effect.
Benedict’s focus on “Beauty” was not superficial. He often said that it was the great art of the Church along with the lives of the saints that were the greatest apologia for the faith.This is expressed both in the glory of a Fra Angelico altarpiece and in the humility of St. Francis washing a leper.The grand BOTH/AND of Catholicism.
So, like all of us, each of the popes has to find his way to use the gifts that God has given him to serve his Church and his flock. We should rejoice that we have been given these extraordinary witnesses and not allow our appreciation of one to be a criticism of another!
Amy, thank you for your thoroughly-sensitive, well-grounded post. I am still mourning my Papa Ratzi and it hurts to read all the comparison articles about Francis vs Benedict. As if Francis is the font of all that is humble and Benedict was not. This is so untrue. I love B16 and if I don’t immediately have that love for Francis, someone I don’t know and who is jarringly doing things different than I am used to (and this goes beyond red shoes and mozzettas!), I think its ok to take some time to warm up.
Some of us felt the liturgy was doing well before Pope Benedict (pre-1997, actually) and that if we did have a re-set, it wasn’t needed or even very welcomed. One man does not make or unmake the liturgy.
I am aware that many people feel less than elated over the events of the past five weeks. Still, the Church has serious challenges. Mostly outside the liturgy. It speaks to our lack of unity (not healed much under Pope Benedict) that there is such a wide range of Catholic feelings and thoughts about the past five days.
I think the Holy Father is in a position to provide a substantive symbolic leadership–actions speaking louder, among other things. Perhaps many of us feel that actions have been rather timid and confined to the peripherals of six clunky candlesticks instead of engaging the Gospel directly and conducting institutional reform. Or stepping out to a full evangelization of the world. Not just alienated believers.
I think Pope Benedict was not so much about “not-Christ,” as much as a sincere, but at-times (not always) misguided attempt at restorationism. The man was a superb mystagogue and a gifted teacher. But not really a liturgist, an administrator, nor connected enough to inspire more than a fraction of Catholics.
This is fantastic. I, too, have been almost forcing myself to think in list form to avoid getting carried somewhere I’d best not go. And one of your commenters mentioned Pope Benedict’s humility — I truly don’t offer my own exhilaration at Francis in “contrast” or whatever, to His Holiness BXVI’s papacy, in any way. And what a lovely reminder of the breathtaking humility our previous Holy Father showed us, of Jesus’ own sacrifice for the flock. We are deeply, richly blessed.
I like this post very much. I have been shocked by the tone of some of the enthusiasm about Pope Francis. Yes, he is an inspirational man and has promise to be a deeply pastoral Pope, but it does seem in poor taste to imply that Benedict was not.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I feel the same way. I especially love point #6 – that whole paragraph.
Pope Benedict was my first pope from beginning to end. I love him very much and am sad. But I also love and welcome to my heart Pope Francis.
The other thing bothering me are those with agendas for Pope Francis to start working on, They are already complaining about things!! It has not even been a week yet!
Let us trust in Jesus and live in peace.
This nailed it for me. I don’t dislike Pope Francis. I’m quite excited about all there is to learn under this pontificate. But… My Facebook is full of people with all of those “Finally!” statements. “Finally! A pope who knows how to relate to real people!” “Finally! A pope who isn’t so full of himself!” “Finally! A pope who is a human being!” Ugh… Someone this morning suggested I sell all of my Ratzinger/Benedict books since they are now obsolete. (!) The tone is not just one of “Francis is better than Benedict because….” There is a poisoning of the well going on here! It’s “Benedict was wrong about everything he ever did and said because Francis is not Benedict.”
“Perhaps many of us feel that actions have been rather timid and confined to the peripherals of six clunky candlesticks instead of engaging the Gospel directly”….”I think Pope Benedict was not so much about “not-Christ,” as much as a sincere, but at-times (not always) misguided attempt at restorationism. The man was a superb mystagogue and a gifted teacher. But not really a liturgist, an administrator, nor connected enough to inspire more than a fraction of Catholics.”
Todd, with due respect, this seems like a very distorted and shallow interpretation of Benedict’s papacy.
“It speaks to our lack of unity (not healed much under Pope Benedict)”
But doesn’t unity require hearing the protagonist with an open mind and heart? Without an attempt at mutual understanding between interlocutors, we will perpetuate this destructive division.
I pray for the sake of the Church that we will listen to Pope Francis with this openness…an attitude that was often not afforded to his predecessor.
I realize that some of the commentary about Pope Francis has focused on distinctions (often offered without much evidence) between him and his predecessor, but I also think that there are other dynamics at work.
It’s clear from the press accounts of the conclave (so much for secrecy!) that a majority of cardinals wanted to sent a strong message that the Church was moving in a new direction. I don’t think they saw that direction as so much “away” from Benedict as “away” from the mess the Curia has become. Does Benedict bear some responsibility for this? Yes (and particularly to the extent that he refused to sack Bertone), but many of the issues go back to JPII’s papacy and have historical roots that stretch back long before that. Benedict reportedly warned the cardinals at the 2005 conclave that he wasn’t a strong administrator so they must share responsibility for any failings of his administration.
One of the ironies, though, is that on the issue that many cardinals saw as highly important–the Church’s response to the sexual abuse crisis–Benedict arguably has some real achievements to his credit. He streamlined the CDF’s procedures for reviewing cases and, most notably, pursued the allegations against Fr. Maciel. The crimes of Mahony and Law can hardly be laid at Benedict’s door.
The enthusiasm for Francis’ simplicity also has to be understood against the backdrop of Europe’s ongoing financial crisis. For poor and working class people in Europe (and particularly Southern Europe) the last few years have been devastating. Many feel that they have been victimized by both economic and political elites who have imposed draconian austerity to atone for the sins of wealthy financiers who have largely escaped accountability. A pope who not only talks about simplicity and solidarity with the poor but actually seems to live it is getting a strong reaction in the European “street” from people who have no personal stake in the “liturgy wars.”
A final word on symbolism. I completely agree with Amy that Benedict’s preference for traditional vestments had nothing to do with concern for personal appearance. They were, as she notes, efforts to reconnect with certain aspects of the tradition. Unfortunately, the action of symbolism is not one-way. How the receiver perceives the symbol also matters. If Pope Benedict had chosen to be crowned with the triple tiara that was in use for centuries it could reasonably be seen as an effort to connect with tradition. But it would have been a disastrous decision because that crown, for good or for ill, is so deeply connected in the minds of millions with a imperial papacy and the arrogance of power that its positive symbolism would be lost.
I personally never had an issue with the red shoes (or any of the other red vestments). But I think that in this particular time and place, the Church’s efforts to preach the Gospel will be better served by grounding ourselves in poverty, simplicity and humility. That view is not a modern innovation. It has been central to all major reform movements within the Church, from the various waves of monastic reform (e.g. Cluniac, Cistercian), to Francis and Dominic, to Teresa of Avila, and others. To become a Church “of and for the poor,” as Francis puts it, will challenge all of us: left, right and center, “traditionalist” and “progressive” and most especially Christians living in the affluent West.
I agree with much of what you say but I would disagree to the extent that I think you’re, at the end, veering towards a false dichotomy. Benedict obviously made his judgments on what to retrieve, didn’t he.? Perhaps that tells us that we might want to reflect on what he retrieved and what that tells us. He obviously didn’t revive the tiara and perhaps that tells us that the monarchical papacy was far from his mind. I have heard it said that his ideal period was pre schism, which is also pre monarchism.
Pardon my style here..am doing this on an iPad In a science museum…
There is a deeper point, as well, and this is something I am also mulling over. There was, as it were, a deeper dynamic and message in Benedict’s program. It has to do with faith. Faith is something that is received, and as we receive Christ, we empty ourselves. We must constantly be on guard against ego..the temptation to control god and to twist faith to confirm our desires and grow our egos. If you have read Benedict on liturgy and spiritualty, this is quite evident. So humbly receiving the symbols of faith ..In liturgy, in papal ceremonial…is a metaphor for how we receive faith. It doesn’t discard human action. Ratzinger was obviously at Vatican 2 and believed the liturgy called for reform. But care…great care must be always taken so that we are on guard against mistaking our own agendas for Christ. A delicate dance requiring constant discernment,but one that must be attended to,
Also, read st. Francis on liturgical accoutrements. His feelings are quite strong.
Well said!
And while we’re at it, here’s an aesthete UK blogger on your meme
http://iconographersnotebook.blogspot.com/2013/03/pope-francis-reformer-more-after-st.html
Pity the suffering in the face of Santo Pio decimo‘s “official” photo shoot — and yet still there are traddies hoping that we’ll smash the glass case in the Basilica basement in DC and send that blast-from-the-past home again for the Installation. Shame on them — contrition being a grace to be whole-heartedly wished for — no insult intended.
did my comment get flagged for moderation?
Haven’t seen it. Let nme see if it got sent to spam. If it had a lot of links it might have.
if irretrievably lost, stet
Here’s an English aesthete who sympathizes with the meme
http://iconographersnotebook.blogspot.com/2013/03/pope-francis-reformer-more-after-st.html
recalling the suffering of Santo pio decimo (who note bene went on the record for posterity’s sake. Paul VI canned it. Then boxed the papal tiara and shipped it to DC!)
I think another problem is celebrity pope – the papacy is an office – it is rightly called the Petrine ministry – however, we tend to idolize the person of the pope. In the days of Philip Neri, the Pope walked about Rome freely, without fanfare.
I see a continuum in the papacy – is that a hermeneutic of continuity? Pius XII, John 23, JPI, JPII, B16, now Francis. It is the papacy of my lifetime.
I don’t miss Benedict because he’s still there and has left a legacy which will not be forgotten, ignored, or put to waste.
I’ve been like this since I was little. When Pius XII died, I told my mother – oh good! Now we get a new Pope! I love the Pope, no matter who the person may be – fortunately in my lifetime, I consider them all great, all saints.
I suppose my attitude to a change in office is similar to the king is dead, long live the king.
It is nice to see people finally uncovering the real St. Francis however. I read Thomas of Celano when I was in 5th grade – over and over. The Poverello’s love for the finery and livery of the Church and liturgy are not news to me. Nor his resepect and esteem for priests and the Pope.
If nothing else, Pope Francis is shaking things up.
Thanks for the good posts Amy!
Terry
I have another thought to add to the discussion which I don’t know if it is true or not. It seems to me when people criticize Benedict XVI, many don’t see his collegiality. He did trust bishops and the laity “to do” and his job was to teach. That was his gift. I’m sure he thought that’s why God chose him to rise unwillingly up the corporate ladder. His mission was to teach. When listening to some, not all, not even half, but a good number of people, I am reminded by how much we want the Pope to do all the heavy lifting. I think that is why some don’t like Benedict. He actually had faith that in our own imperfect ways, we were doing the heavy lifting in our own homes and communities. When historians look back, Benedict will be seen as one of the more collegial popes, which goes against the Ratzinger stereotype. And, when we finally see God’s plan, the mystery of Benedict will be revealed. Many will have missed it but many will still yet discover his gift. He brought God back into the discussion.
Anita – “Ugh… Someone this morning suggested I sell all of my Ratzinger/Benedict books since they are now obsolete. (!)”
just remind them absent the 1996 “Called to Communion” reprint of 1990 theology lectures addressed to Synod of Bishops in Brazil he was schooled in the very latest current of thought in the preceding two papacies (communio personarum phenomenalism) and was invited to teach it to the 2006 Latin American bishops gathering in Apericida and again at the International Eucharistic Congress. thus ensuring his brother electors were better acqainted with him. BECAUSE of Ratzinger/Benedict’s humble pneumatology not despite it!! Whenever you hear folks talking about the “mighty winds of the new Pentecost” don’t get swept up in the sentimentality. Pause, take a deep breath, and take a moment to check if it coheres with how the Holy Spirit acts in three-ply
“There is a certain difficulty in speaking about the Holy Spirit, even a certain danger. He withdraws from us into mystery even more than Christ. It is quite possible that this topic has sparked only idle speculation and that human life is being based upon self-made fantasies rather than reality. This is why I hesitated to offer just my own reflections. It seems to me that three conditions must be fulfilled to speak meaningfully, reliably, and defensibly about the Holy Spirit. First it cannot be talk based upon pure theory but must touch an experienced reality that has been interpreted and communicated in thought. But experience alone does not suffice. It must be tested and tried experience so that “one’s own spirit” does not take the place of the Holy Spirit. Third: in consequence, suspicion will always arise when someone speaks on his own account, “from within.” Such speech contradicts the Holy Spirit’s mode of being, for he is characterized precisely “by not speaking on his own” (Jn 16:13). In this respect, originality and truth can easily lead to a paradox. But that means that trust is only appropriate when one does not speak on a purely private account [*cough* ahem, Mahony *cough* -ed], but from an experience of the Spirit tested in front of and standing in the context of the whole, i.e. when one submits the experience of “spirit” to the entirety of the Church. This presupposes as an axiom of Christian faith that the Church herself—when she truly exists as Church—is a creation of the Spirit” in “Retrieving the Tradition —
The Holy Spirit as Communio: Concerning the Relationship of
Pneumatology and Spirituality in Augustine” see http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/ratzinger25-2.pdf
IOW, in speaking faithfully, we propose
– no reductive abstractions, always concrete reality
– no private opinions, always clarified and moderated by others
– no wordly impressions, always universal context of “at all times & places”
A good test is to try and say it in a foreign tongue. If it still resonates beauty, goodness and truth, then your sails may very well be divinely filled with the Holy Spirit rather than inflated by egotistical self regard. Pope Francis spoke on this very “trinity” to the journalists on Saturday morning but its still such a novel teaching the world (and perhaps Cardinal Mahony and others of that era who are still railling against fin-de-siecle Thomists (from the end of the 19th century not the 20th, as yet seemingly unaware of the rapid convergent developments in the 21st) has yet to take note regardless of how uptodate on Twitter they are!
I have always admired Papa Benedict and always will. The fact that now, he lives at the foot of the Cross in silence and in prayer is very important to me and I hope never to forget that for as long as he shall live and walk with us on this new journey. I seek to imitate him in pledging my fidelity and obedience to Papa Francis much like Benedict has done.
When I reflect on all that has happened since Benedict’s resignation, I pray to always trust in the mystery of why it happened since I cannot truly know. Jesus knows and He along with Benedict and Pope Francis knows their hearts truly.
I will not presume to know let alone understand but I am sad and shocked at the vile (in my opinion) I have read, on other sites, as to why “Benedict did that or did not do or why Pope Francis is that and does not do that.” To have lived a vow of poverty for so long and to have it be a part of one’s life and person must be hard for him to let go. Let us pray for him to find middle ground and to be open to those who will assist him as he presses on. And may those who are assisting him be patient and loving and prayerful.
I loved the red shoes…but I will remain loyal whether he wears them or not. Same goes for the other beautiful and awe-inspiring papal finery. What matters is the faith he has, the love he has for Jesus Crucified and for our dear Lady. It is reported he prays the 15 decades of the rosary daily and was inspired to do so by JPII. Wonderful!
Anyway, Amy Welborn thank you for your post. My first time to visit your blog and I look forward to reading more as the days and weeks and months proceed.
Let us all venture forth with Papa Francisco on this new journey with great faith and hope in Christ Jesus.
here’s Santo Padre Francisco on awe and wonder for the universals:
http://quaerere-deum.me/post/45694626655/the-beginning-of-every-philosophy-is-wonder-and#_=_
and on the ‘unfathomable abyss’ – the encounter with our Father
http://catholicland.blogspot.com/2013/03/francis-and-faustina.html
how deep would Dante’s Lethe need to flow to wash away all the sins Jesus forgets?
And let’s not forget Pope Francis is in cultivated company — here’s Ravasi on Borges:
“Toda casa es candelabro donde arden con aislada llama las vidas” Each house is a chandelier where lives burn ardently with lonely flames (Fervor de Buenos Aires)
(and for Flannery-on-steroids, try Borges “Tres versiones de Judas” for pre-VII take on the tyranny of relativism:
http://www.voxpublica.org/2009/07/three_versions_of_judas.html
both English and Spanish but caution advised, the poster claims he lost his faith upon reading this text (fans of Chesterton’s “Man who was Thursday”
need not worry, Borges had an english Granny on his father’s side who taught him Shakespeare, its all a little tongue-in-cheek)
A facile reductive worldliness that neglects any of the three absolutes, each renunciation making for a different Judas, who upon consummation of the encounter mysteriously mimics our ecclesial understanding of Ecce Homo eucharistic kenosis that only a mother’s unconditional love as pure as Mary’s could withstand. (Borges encounter mysteriously mimics our ecclesial understanding of Ecce Homo eucharistic kenosis only a mother’s unconditional love can withstand. (Borges stories rarely feature female protagonists, yet if you ask yourself “what would Mary do?” at each juncture you solve the predicament of Judas: he never sought her out, everything, even our errors, points to the mystical body of Jesus. This is perhaps the weakness of our culture faced with such treasures, we haven’t passed on the needed hermeneutical keys or symbols for our young ones to “get it” – C+L’s strength is exactly this kind of new evangilisation… buckle up its going to be an exciting ride, we’ll send Benedict a postcard!
oops, sorry excess “encounter” text cut-n-pasted after first (Borges, skip to second and read on.
Thank you Amy for this post. I have read your various sites for years, but this is the first time I have commented. I have the Vatican site for Pope Benedict’s writings on my desktop so I can slowly study them. He writes so beautifully and clearly.
footnote: C + L is short for Communion and Liberation
a lay movement both Papst emeritus BXVI and Santo Padre Francisco ave been associated with. The journal Communio is an international work of the new theology, a line of thinking rejected by some hardened Thomist Judas-freaks who take issue with the mystery of Divine action during Holy Saturday implied by von Balthazar (who seem Hell-bent on defining their salvation at the expense of Judas’ perdition — which is exactly the heretical thinking Borges satirizes: Our Redeemer doesn’t “need” Judas in any sense, he saves us gratuitously, ransoming with his own life not anyone elses not even she who birthed him via superabundant Grace he preserved her immaculate all her days)
a trivium for our Year of Faith:
beauty = mercy (Our Lord’s prayer) the logic of Logos
goodness = sanctity of life made in the Divine image (Decalog) the rhetorik of the gift of logic
truth = God is love, the three-in-one communion of the Holy Trinity (Apostles’ Creed) the grammar of ascent to rhetorik of logic
H/T Peter Kreeft at http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/philosophy/ph0106.htm
(pls excuse duplication of URL I posted yesterday already under “Catholic and Enjoying it” its so good its worth sharing here too!)
Thank you, Amy. Well said.
I love Papa B and I have also fallen in love with Papa C. I used to giggle at some of the things that Papa Benedict would say or write…but no one seemed to understand his humor or his sweet grandfatherly way. He often softened his delivery, but the words of alarm are exactly in step with Papa ‘Cisco. Papa ‘Cisco’s actions and humor are delighting many…and people are charmed. He is the father who loves us so much he will discipline us in a way that we will immediately grasp. Catholics then will have to choose the path they will take — the path of authentic Catholic life or the path designed to please ourselves rather than please God.
for the liturgy police, please watch the entire video of Papa C’s Mass at Santa Anna.
for those who would so quickly judge our Holy Father…get yourself to confession asap because the devil is having his way with you. I don’t say that lightly.
Ms Welborn:
Amen and thank you.
I loves me some sanity!
Thank you for explaining the much-maligned red shoes! I knew all the griping about footwear color was overkill, but the symbolism makes them so much more profound.
At the heart of Catholicism (and religion in general) is the concept that objects and actions have deeper meanings beyond the visible. The current fuss over Benedict’s use of the papal sacristies misses the point of liturgy entirely.
While many things about the new Pope excite me, I too am disturbed by such suggestions that Francis’ less than week-long (!) papacy is somehow a “repudiation” of Benedict’s papacy! Really, come on, people! I think part of it is just various constituencies trying to make the new Pope their own (and I’m certain they will all be disappointed), and part of it is just the newness of it all. Ratzinger was a known commodity when he was elected. Bergoglio seemed to many to come out of nowhere! I’ll admit to being apprehensive when Ratzinger became Pope. But he was neither what many feared, nor what many hoped. And I think that was a good thing. He took his role as Pope seriously (as demonstrated by his resignation, I think), and was a good pastor. I’m grateful for his service as Pope. And I look forward in hope to what new things Pope Francis will bring, without feeling the need to see it as a judgment on, or repudiation of, Benedict’s papacy. Such conclusions are unfair to the complexities of the job, and of the Church. Thanks, Amy, for taking the time to point this out!
Pope Benedict is as precious to me as my own grandfather. I love what one commenter correctly described as his gentle scholarliness, and I love the humility and love for God that float invisibly around him like a mantle. No, he wasn’t perfect. Yes, he should have managed the Curia better. And, yes, I fully expect Pope Francis to be just as holy a pope as Benedict was – but also to make just as many mistakes, albeit likely different ones. Don’t we all? As a relatively new Catholic, though, I have to say that all the harsh injustice that is being levelled at Benedict in the form of comparisons with Francis is the most painful, heartbreaking thing I have experienced since entering the Church. Thank you, Amy, for this post…
Your comment brought tears to my eyes…thank you…I agree with you.
Yes, Finicky Cat, I agree with Amy — your wonderful comments capture what I’ve been feeling about Benedict, as well.
I hope I’m not repeating any of the earlier comments, but I think it’s also possible that because Francis is not from Europe or the U.S., he’s somehow not tainted with all the historical baggage those two places carry. A notion based on ignorance, of course, but held by many in today’s world.
I read this eminently sensible post early on and am glad that I’m now coming back to read the comments. I keep looking for the “like” button – so many great observations. Back in the early days of B16’s pontificate I was won over by his humility and, yes, common touch as he interacted with the faithful. The divisions in the Catholic world in the past week have been painful, but I’m resolved not to let it affect my abiding gratitude and joy at how God has provided for his Church through all of the popes of my lifetime.
Finicky Cat – I tried to add you to my Google Reader (soon to be only Bloglovin’), but see that you are private at this time. I too was touched by your comment and I would love to read more. Thanks again to Amy and also to you.
This is a great and timely post. I could have written what Finicky Cat said (but not as well.) What I find disturbing is the messianism the seems to be the undercurrent of fervor for Francis’ perceived style and strengths versus Benedict’s. Oh, save us from the shortcomings and errors of the previous pope! It’s a truly terrible mindset, a very worldly attitude. We have one Savior, the Church is our mother, and Christ is her bridegroom. God bless Francis, and God bless Benedict.
Awesome Amy. Thank you so much. I’m discouraged with the ramped up chatter about “good pope” versus “bad pope”. I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone. There is so much superficial labelling everywhere these days. So few people want to go below the surface of their own biases and confront the depths of what Pope Benedict was (and always will!) be teaching.
Cheers from Canada.
Tony
Outstanding post. Perfect in tone and substance.
Pope Francis will be the first to remind us that Benedict was a great teacher, and more.
What angers me is the very same Catholic commentators who were just a few weeks ago praising him for the ultimate act of humility-stepping down because he couldn’t do it anymore are now saying in effect”He was good as administrator. could not really connect with the “People” “Too Scholarly” to me is the ultimate in being two-faced. Perhaps they never really liked respected or appreciated him but just put on an act when he was still reigning. Worse for them. One person who does and is grateful and appreciative and has not stopped bringing his name up is the man who has now taken his place. Pope Francis. If Pope Emeritus Benedict had NOT abdicated a month ago there would NOW be no Pope Francis to be “crazy” about. At least give him credit for that. BTW tomorrow the 23rd Pope Francis will be going to see the ” Irrelevant Pope Emeritus and be with him for two whole hours, At least Benedict knows who ( besides those of us who love him) appears to at least treat him with some respect. “Professional Catholics” a phrase he used in “Light of the World concerning those who make a living off Catholicism but in whom the Faith itself is just a few scatter drops” That’s what these “Catholic Media” People really are IMHO.