Pope Benedict XVI: Will He Restore the Church?
Been reading a few different works by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger ... trying to get an idea of who this new pontiff is, what things he believes are important, what sorts of papal activity we can expect during his reign. In the stack of "things to read" are the following:
The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church. Ignatius Press, 1985.
Many Religions - One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World. Ignatius Press, 1999.
The Spirit of the Liturgy. Ignatius Press, 2000.
Salt of the Earth: Christianity and the Catholic Church at the End of the Millenium. Ignatius Press, 1997.
So many things to say about all of this. So many conflicted feelings.
Thank God it's Ratzinger, not Kasper. Thank God it's Ratzinger, not Lustiger. Thank God it's Ratzinger, not Mahoney.
But let's not get crazy-dizzy and think that Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict XVI, is going to be another Pope St. Pius X.
A few excerpts that I found interesting ... regarding the SSPX's existence, he says:
"Similar absurd situations have been able to endure up to now precisely by nourishing themselves on the arbitrariness and thoughtlessness of many post-conciliar interpretations. This places a further obligation upon us to show the true face of the Council: thus one will be able to cut the ground from under these false protests." (Ratzinger Report, p. 33)
True enough. What makes life so difficult for the neo-Catholic of today is that his SSPX opponent only has to point to the awful fruits of the council: the Clown Masses, the dissenting priests, the decline of the dogmatic faith ... all of which, I believe, Ratzinger is willing to file as abuses under the category of "arbitrary and thoughtless post-conciliar interpretations."
If these wild abuses can finally be eradicated from the Church (no small request, given how wide-spread they are), it will be more difficult for a Traditionalist to point to objective evidence and say, "See? This is what the council hath wrought, and therefore my resistance is justified."
And apparently Ratzinger thinks, or thought (as long ago as 1985), that it is possible to accomplish this - that his "obligation" is to "show the true face of the Council." I say that's a wonderful idea - Traditionalists have only been asking for 40 years for someone to finally define what this "true face" of the Council is. Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI will do precisely that, simultaneously cutting the ground out both from under the liberals who abuse the conciliar documents and - as a consequence - the Traditionalists who point to these liberals as justification for their positition of resistance.
Like I said: this is no minor thing. The liberal problem is universal in the Church at the moment, from the laity to the priesthood, from the university professors to the ruling cardinals. If Pope Benedict XVI thinks he can somehow get this problem under control, he certainly has my prayerful support.
For those Traditionalists who think Benedict XVI is going to turn back the conciliar clock, however, and attemp a restoration of Tradition by sweeping Vatican II under the rug, I have some bad news ...
"If by 'restoration' is meant a turning back, no restoration of such kind is possible. The Church moves forward toward the consummation of history, she looks ahead to the Lord who is coming. No, there is no going back, nor is it possible to go back. Hence there is no 'restoration' whatsoever in this sense. But if by restoration we understand the search for a new balance after all the exaggerations of an indiscriminate opening to the world, after the overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world, well, then a restoration understood in this sense (a newly found balance of orientations and values within the Catholic totality) is altogether desirable and, for that matter, is already in operation in the Church. In this sense it can be said that the first phase after Vatican II has come to a close." (ibid., pp. 37-38)
Again, that's a tall order indeed. Can the new pontiff curb the "indiscriminate opening to the world" that is going on in the Church today, or counter the "overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world?"
Not unless he's willing to fight hard for his desires. And, as former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (trivia note: formerly known as "The Office of the Holy Inquisition"), he's no stranger to confrontation with dissenters. He's already familiar with what it takes to censure or silence those who require such measures.
Maybe he's battle-hardened enough to bring about, with his new-found authority as Pope Benedict XVI, the kinds of changes he was envisioning while still a cardinal.
Of course, John Paul II said a lot of things about the need for reform, too. He admitted openly the problem of liturgical abuse. He even wrote encyclicals and apostolic letters to correct those things - but he really didn't put any teeth behind his commands.
So, while Ratzinger says good things, it remains to be seen whether his experience as head of the CDF will prove to be the "missing ingredient" that makes his pontificate different from that of his predecessor.
I'm certainly curious to find out. There is a great sense of anticipation here. Ratzinger had very clear ideas on what needed to be done to stabilize the Church, and now he has the papal authority to put his theories into practice. It will be interesting to discover 1) if he has the strength to make them into practical and disciplinary decrees, 2) if he has the backbone to put teeth behind his words, and 3) if his theories-turned-practice will actually work.
As someone already mentioned elsewhere, he has the added graces that come with the papal office - anything is possible at this point.
Perhaps it might be safe to dream again ...
The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church. Ignatius Press, 1985.
Many Religions - One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World. Ignatius Press, 1999.
The Spirit of the Liturgy. Ignatius Press, 2000.
Salt of the Earth: Christianity and the Catholic Church at the End of the Millenium. Ignatius Press, 1997.
So many things to say about all of this. So many conflicted feelings.
Thank God it's Ratzinger, not Kasper. Thank God it's Ratzinger, not Lustiger. Thank God it's Ratzinger, not Mahoney.
But let's not get crazy-dizzy and think that Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict XVI, is going to be another Pope St. Pius X.
A few excerpts that I found interesting ... regarding the SSPX's existence, he says:
"Similar absurd situations have been able to endure up to now precisely by nourishing themselves on the arbitrariness and thoughtlessness of many post-conciliar interpretations. This places a further obligation upon us to show the true face of the Council: thus one will be able to cut the ground from under these false protests." (Ratzinger Report, p. 33)
True enough. What makes life so difficult for the neo-Catholic of today is that his SSPX opponent only has to point to the awful fruits of the council: the Clown Masses, the dissenting priests, the decline of the dogmatic faith ... all of which, I believe, Ratzinger is willing to file as abuses under the category of "arbitrary and thoughtless post-conciliar interpretations."
If these wild abuses can finally be eradicated from the Church (no small request, given how wide-spread they are), it will be more difficult for a Traditionalist to point to objective evidence and say, "See? This is what the council hath wrought, and therefore my resistance is justified."
And apparently Ratzinger thinks, or thought (as long ago as 1985), that it is possible to accomplish this - that his "obligation" is to "show the true face of the Council." I say that's a wonderful idea - Traditionalists have only been asking for 40 years for someone to finally define what this "true face" of the Council is. Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI will do precisely that, simultaneously cutting the ground out both from under the liberals who abuse the conciliar documents and - as a consequence - the Traditionalists who point to these liberals as justification for their positition of resistance.
Like I said: this is no minor thing. The liberal problem is universal in the Church at the moment, from the laity to the priesthood, from the university professors to the ruling cardinals. If Pope Benedict XVI thinks he can somehow get this problem under control, he certainly has my prayerful support.
For those Traditionalists who think Benedict XVI is going to turn back the conciliar clock, however, and attemp a restoration of Tradition by sweeping Vatican II under the rug, I have some bad news ...
"If by 'restoration' is meant a turning back, no restoration of such kind is possible. The Church moves forward toward the consummation of history, she looks ahead to the Lord who is coming. No, there is no going back, nor is it possible to go back. Hence there is no 'restoration' whatsoever in this sense. But if by restoration we understand the search for a new balance after all the exaggerations of an indiscriminate opening to the world, after the overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world, well, then a restoration understood in this sense (a newly found balance of orientations and values within the Catholic totality) is altogether desirable and, for that matter, is already in operation in the Church. In this sense it can be said that the first phase after Vatican II has come to a close." (ibid., pp. 37-38)
Again, that's a tall order indeed. Can the new pontiff curb the "indiscriminate opening to the world" that is going on in the Church today, or counter the "overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world?"
Not unless he's willing to fight hard for his desires. And, as former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (trivia note: formerly known as "The Office of the Holy Inquisition"), he's no stranger to confrontation with dissenters. He's already familiar with what it takes to censure or silence those who require such measures.
Maybe he's battle-hardened enough to bring about, with his new-found authority as Pope Benedict XVI, the kinds of changes he was envisioning while still a cardinal.
Of course, John Paul II said a lot of things about the need for reform, too. He admitted openly the problem of liturgical abuse. He even wrote encyclicals and apostolic letters to correct those things - but he really didn't put any teeth behind his commands.
So, while Ratzinger says good things, it remains to be seen whether his experience as head of the CDF will prove to be the "missing ingredient" that makes his pontificate different from that of his predecessor.
I'm certainly curious to find out. There is a great sense of anticipation here. Ratzinger had very clear ideas on what needed to be done to stabilize the Church, and now he has the papal authority to put his theories into practice. It will be interesting to discover 1) if he has the strength to make them into practical and disciplinary decrees, 2) if he has the backbone to put teeth behind his words, and 3) if his theories-turned-practice will actually work.
As someone already mentioned elsewhere, he has the added graces that come with the papal office - anything is possible at this point.
Perhaps it might be safe to dream again ...
<< Home