An Historic Papacy
Catholic, General April 19th, 2005Many speculated that the papacy of John XXIII would be transitional and they are saying the same about a Benedict XVI papacy. They were wrong then and I think they’re wrong now. I think our new Pope will have a highly influencial papacy. Although I would never tell the holy father what to do, I do nonetheless have a few things that I would like to see accomplished (and that I think need taking care of):
1. Continue the work of better relations with the Orthodox
2. Abolish or seriously reform the ICEL and speed up the new translation of the English liturgy
3. Crack down on and renew the religious orders, whose membership is often heretical and grey
4. Increase the number of priestly vocations
5. Reform Catholic higher education in the USA and other parts of the West, requiring theology to be taught by Catholics loyal to the Church
God bless Benedict XVI! I know that God will use him in many ways.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
can we bring conservative anglicans back into communion with Rome? Really, just adopt us all as a group. Let’s just all be in communion together. Please?
April 19th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
Anastasia,
I think Ratzinger was responsible for the Anglican pastoral provision and the Anglican Use parishes. He also sent a letter supporting the conservative Anglican group meeting in Texas a couple years ago. So, it seems that he has Anglicans on his radar at least.
April 19th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
sweet.
i read in christian challenge some time ago that conservative anglicans from across the world communion had been in talks with the vatican about repairing communion. I hoped benedict XVI would be open to that sort of thing.
I should email fr. former priest about it. he would know.
April 20th, 2005 at 11:36 am
I do know that FiF seems pretty pleased. The statement from the opening Mass looks promising. I do think some folks will be surprised at the way Benedict goes; he seems to treat this position as different from his previous one–as he should because it is.
A lot of young conservative Catholics appear to be hoping for an American inquisition. I know that y’all are more theologically and historically astute than to think that there is one RC party line that must be toed–after all, Anselm, Bernard, Bonaventure, and Benedict all fall within acceptable thought and are all quite different from one another. Certainly people teaching Catholic theology should adhere to a literal understanding of the Nicene Creed, but a narrow doctrinal statement ala Wheaton and others should not be the goal. But then, I’m an excommunicant anyway by your reckoning.
April 20th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Bringing in the conservative Anglicans would be a major coup, that’s for sure.
http://scetis.blogspot.com/2005/04/trends-in-ecumenism.html
April 20th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Hi Jonathan,
I think Pope Benedict XVI will work hard to further unity with the Orthodox and I think we’ll continue to see many conversions to Catholicism. What is the ICEL?
Les
April 20th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
Derek,
There is legitimate room for disagreement and diversity in some areas, but there are also areas (even beyond the Nicene Creed) that a person cannot teach against publicity and still claim to be Catholic or at least to be representing Catholicism. For example, one can possibly give new insights about the Immaculate Conception, but one still has to publically believe and teach it as defined to be a Catholic theologian. Those are still the ground rules of Catholicism, even in America. The Vatican has actually been very tolerant spending years investigating theologians and giving them ample time to explain themselves while only condemning a few. I believe the situation in some parts of the USA and other places needs some type of correction.
There are a couple of ways that people have talked about doing this. I think the Vatican recommended having bishops certify the orthodoxy of theologians working in their individual dioceses. In terms of the Catholic universities themselves, I guess the decision would be up to them. I think it was Marist College that the Catholic Church simply said they couldn’t call themselves Catholic anymore. I think Benedict has said in the past (I may be wrong, but someone did) that universities must decide if they still want to be Catholic in the 21st century. It’s not the horrors of the inquisition, just some soul searching and deciding to either be “progressive” or remain an officially Catholic institution.
Hope you’re well,
Jonathan
April 20th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
Les,
ICEL stands for the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. This is what has given us what I think are dreadful translations of the original Latin texts. For example, they have, in the words of one of their members, “been very meticulous in keeping to the principle of inclusive language” even to the point of minimizing or removing references to God as Father.
April 21st, 2005 at 11:57 am
Personally I’d think a diocesan approach would be the way to go. As you may know there’s a movement among the small liberal-arts colleges that have maintained there religious affiliations to try and figure out just what it means to be a religious college and I think it’d be great if the Catholic colleges weighed in on the issue too.
I recognize that there are issues beyond creedal boundaries but I see most of the major ones as being implicit in the Creeds. After all, a denial of the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not merely a scramental question but fundamentally a Christological one, etc. On the exmple you specifically mentioned–since you mention it being outside the creeds I can only assume you are referring to the doctrine of the Immaculate Connception of the BVM. Could you remind me again the earliest Church document that mentions it as a part of the historic faith as I don’t seem to remember it being mentioned in Holy Scripture…?
April 24th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
At the Solemn Inaugural Mass today here in Rome, I was watching Rowan Williams and was wondering what he must think of the 500,000 people in the square and along the via della Conciliazione who have gathered from all over the world. It seemed so clear that this Church is the Church of Revelation, where all those who have been regenerated by the waters of Baptism and clothed in white robes come before the Lamb and, in the case of this morning, before the Lamb’s vicar, as well. I hope our separated brethren were able to reflect on this. Ut unum sint.
As Benedict asked us today in the homily, keep up the prayers for him!
April 26th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
Derek,
I used the example of the Immcaculate Conception because it’s something uniquely Catholic, but nonetheless a part of Catholic dogma. A Catholic theologian can’t teach against it and still be officially recognized as a Catholic theologian. If a public Catholic teacher won’t conform to Catholic theology and morality (that part that is dogmatically defined at least), there are many options. For one, the mainline Protestants seem to be in need of members right now. It’s a shame to lose people, but there does come a point when people must decide where they belong. I, for example, was trying to make the Episcopal Church like the Catholic Church and life was happier for me and my Anglican colleagues when I just became Catholic.
As for the Immaculate Conception, scriptural support (in a Catholic sense) could be found in Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28. There is much support in the early Fathers for the idea of Mary as the immaculate “New Eve” and free from the stain of original sin. The more explicit examples can be found in St. Hippolytus, St. Ambrose (he says: virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin), Origen, St. Augustine, and especially the Syrians like St. Ephraim and St. John of Damascus. As far as I know the feast itself originated with the Syrians. The Immaculate Conception is the Catholic way of speaking of Mary’s freedom from sin (especially original sin).
Of course, the Orthodox would deny the Immaculate Conception, but would not deny Mary’s sinlessness. They call Mary “panhagia” but since they don’t believe in original sin, they have never believed in the immaculate Conception. Protestants, with a few Anglo-Catholic Anglican exceptions, would generally deny it today, although Luther (and maybe Zwingli, although I can’t discern exactly) believed in it.
April 27th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Jonathan,
Luther, Zwingli, Wesley and Calvin all believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Luther definitely believed that she was without sin and Wesley said that she was ’spotless’. I’m not sure if Calvin, Wesley and Zwingli believed in the Immaculate Conception, but they definitely held her in very high regard, much more so than most Protestants today.