Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.
I could not agree more with the sentiments expressed in this post. It doesn't take long before those comments from the peanut gallery start coming about how we need a new pope whose views on xyz are more in line with the modern world. It really causes one to groan. Guess we'll just have to offer it up.
Indeed. Listening to the secular coverage of the Pope's abdication I was begining to wonder whether the Church they were discussing was the same one I know and love.
The Daily Mail had a list of possible candidates and their views on abortion and priestesses. Are there any Cardinals who think abortion is not a sin?
The comments in the Guardian seemed to me particularly out of touch - mind you, you can say that about anything in the Guardian.
The late Cardinal Martini was ambiguous on the subject of abortion in public. He was always seemed to have a La Repubblica editorial in mind when speaking.
Toning down one part of the Christian message in order to maintain credibility in other has been employed by many Church leaders not least Cardinal Hume who was (sort of) inspired by Cardinal Heenan to do the same.
Has it worked?
The notion that the contemporary Church can do business with benign, post-enlightenment democracies in this way is straight out of the playbook of John Courtney Murray and Dignitatis Humanae. It’s starting to sound very dated. In contrast, when I look at the movies of Murray’s fellow Irish American and near contemporary, John Ford, I am struck by their prescience. In his later works, Ford presented a far more sober if not sombre even brutal vision of Western society.
This is all very well, but every Pope is different from his predecessor and it is hardly surprising that questions should be asked and hopes expressed about what the differences will be this time.
Given the successor of St. Peter’s mantel of infallibility in ex cathedra pronouncements on faith and morals, that may seem like a strange statement. But, bear with me.
The Deposit of Faith was given to us by Jesus Christ – filling in and expanding upon what God had revealed to the Chosen People in the Old Testament. Our Lord came to ‘fulfill the Law’ which God had revealed to Moses. And fulfill it He did. And it has not changed in the 2000+ years of the Church’s existence. It is His Church, remember?
What has changed is our understanding of the Faith and Christian Doctrine – which has been deepened and expanded, first through the Apostles themselves, then through the Fathers of the Church, to the Popes, Councils and theologians down through the centuries. And, pace Hans Kung – among others - theologians don’t define doctrine. They seek to explain it further - or should, at least…
So, while we nay admire, respect, love and revere Pope “X’ or Pope “Y”, we do not take our Faith from them nor should it be dependent on them. And, given some of the less than stellar Popes the Church endured in earlier times, that’s just as well…!
Some of the secular speculations on what the next Pope should be or do are laughable to anyone with a modicum of understanding of the Catholic Faith – or a modicum of faith, period. “Will he chart a new direction?” “What about divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia – will he relax the rules?”
First of all there is only one direction in which any Pope seeks to lead the Church and that is to salvation, the next life – Heaven, in other words. That’s what we’re here for – to get there. That is the only ‘success’ that counts – not the size of our house, our car, our bank account or how many friends we have on Facebook.
It is indicative of the relativism of our time that people look on life and death matters in terms of ‘rules’ that are subject to change or circumstance. “Everything is not black and white” is a common rejoinder. True, everything isn’t – but that doesn’t mean that nothing is. Some things are definitely black or white, right or wrong – and don’t admit of exceptions!
No Pope can change that. And if we want to be Thomistic, even God can’t - because that would be a contradiction and there can be no contradiction in God.
I'm relieved to read the editorial on B16's decision in Civilta' Cattolica. I imagine you have already seen it; if not, Sandro Magister has it on 'Settimo Cielo'.
8 comments:
And so say all of us!
I could not agree more with the sentiments expressed in this post. It doesn't take long before those comments from the peanut gallery start coming about how we need a new pope whose views on xyz are more in line with the modern world. It really causes one to groan. Guess we'll just have to offer it up.
Indeed. Listening to the secular coverage of the Pope's abdication I was begining to wonder whether the Church they were discussing was the same one I know and love.
The Daily Mail had a list of possible candidates and their views on abortion and priestesses. Are there any Cardinals who think abortion is not a sin?
The comments in the Guardian seemed to me particularly out of touch - mind you, you can say that about anything in the Guardian.
The late Cardinal Martini was ambiguous on the subject of abortion in public. He was always seemed to have a La Repubblica editorial in mind when speaking.
Toning down one part of the Christian message in order to maintain credibility in other has been employed by many Church leaders not least Cardinal Hume who was (sort of) inspired by Cardinal Heenan to do the same.
Has it worked?
The notion that the contemporary Church can do business with benign, post-enlightenment democracies in this way is straight out of the playbook of John Courtney Murray and Dignitatis Humanae. It’s starting to sound very dated. In contrast, when I look at the movies of Murray’s fellow Irish American and near contemporary, John Ford, I am struck by their prescience. In his later works, Ford presented a far more sober if not sombre even brutal vision of Western society.
This is all very well, but every Pope is different from his predecessor and it is hardly surprising that questions should be asked and hopes expressed about what the differences will be this time.
Our faith is not determined by Popes!
Given the successor of St. Peter’s mantel of infallibility in ex cathedra pronouncements on faith and morals, that may seem like a strange statement. But, bear with me.
The Deposit of Faith was given to us by Jesus Christ – filling in and expanding upon what God had revealed to the Chosen People in the Old Testament. Our Lord came to ‘fulfill the Law’ which God had revealed to Moses. And fulfill it He did. And it has not changed in the 2000+ years of the Church’s existence. It is His Church, remember?
What has changed is our understanding of the Faith and Christian Doctrine – which has been deepened and expanded, first through the Apostles themselves, then through the Fathers of the Church, to the Popes, Councils and theologians down through the centuries. And, pace Hans Kung – among others - theologians don’t define doctrine. They seek to explain it further - or should, at least…
So, while we nay admire, respect, love and revere Pope “X’ or Pope “Y”, we do not take our Faith from them nor should it be dependent on them. And, given some of the less than stellar Popes the Church endured in earlier times, that’s just as well…!
Some of the secular speculations on what the next Pope should be or do are laughable to anyone with a modicum of understanding of the Catholic Faith – or a modicum of faith, period. “Will he chart a new direction?” “What about divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia – will he relax the rules?”
First of all there is only one direction in which any Pope seeks to lead the Church and that is to salvation, the next life – Heaven, in other words. That’s what we’re here for – to get there. That is the only ‘success’ that counts – not the size of our house, our car, our bank account or how many friends we have on Facebook.
It is indicative of the relativism of our time that people look on life and death matters in terms of ‘rules’ that are subject to change or circumstance. “Everything is not black and white” is a common rejoinder. True, everything isn’t – but that doesn’t mean that nothing is. Some things are definitely black or white, right or wrong – and don’t admit of exceptions!
No Pope can change that. And if we want to be Thomistic, even God can’t - because that would be a contradiction and there can be no contradiction in God.
I'm relieved to read the editorial on B16's decision in Civilta' Cattolica. I imagine you have already seen it; if not, Sandro Magister has it on 'Settimo Cielo'.
I think that "Shut it!" would be remarkable restrained.
Would there be an approved stronger phrase that could be used? How about, 'supprime tuum stultiloquium!'?
Post a Comment