A Tale Of Two Popes: Continuity Or Rupture
The press has loved to dwell on the differences between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. Of course, it looks for news, and subtle differences are not news. They have to be transformed into something dramatic. Shades of grey are turned into black and white. Emphasis must be changed to catch peoples’ attention. This process of turning events into news becomes a habit of mind. I had a journalist uncle for whom every event in his private life was turned into a news story, so that his ordinary conversation had to be taken with a pinch of salt. If this is true of secular news, it is even more true of religious news in a secular climate. It was true in the reporting of the 2nd Vatican Council, and it is true in the reporting of the differences between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.
Before we go into the real relationship between the two popes, a short note is necessary about the pre-conciliar reform movement, because this forms the background of one of the most influential groupings in Vatican II and of at least two popes and, I will argue,of a probable third. Under a cloud for suspected “modernism” and often forbidden to write and publish before the council, they were invited to take part by Pope John XXIII. They were joined by others at the council, including Archbishop Wojtyla and the young Fr Joseph Ratzinger. In the end, they were largely responsible for writing the principal documents. When Archbishop Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II, he started making them cardinals. Some of the theological giants of the 20th Century were among them:people like Henri de Lubac, Jean Daniélou, Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, and Louis Bouyer. There was also Hans Urs von Balthasar, the greatest name after Henri de Lubac, who, probably because he had left the Jesuits, was not invited to the Council. Another Jesuit who shared their convictions was Teilhard de Chardin, but he was busy doing his own thing.
A very significant fact, little talked about in those pre-conciliar days, was the presence in Paris of some of the leading Orthodox theologians of the day, refugees from the Russian Revolution and their offspring. Their influence on the Ressourcement theologians was strong; and, if in the post-Conciliar Church, talk of a “eucharistic ecclesiology” and “theosis” is commonplace, it is largely thanks to them. The truth is that both groups of theologians, Catholic and Orthodox, probably much to their surprise, discovered that, even where they hotly disagreed, they were arguing from within the same Tradition. Fr Georges Florovsky, one of the greatest of the Orthodox, said that the Orthodox and the Latins did not have two traditions but one Tradition. Their different versions of that Tradition are no longer in harmony with one another, but they belong to each other, nevertheless. It must have helped that both groups shared an antagonism towards the neo-Thomism of the day, and both found the solution in a return to the Fathers. Why wasn’t this relationship well known? It must be remembered that both sides were under a cloud in those pre-conciliar days. The French theologians were suspected of modernism because of their insistence that contemporary Catholic certainties must be judged in the light of the whole Catholic Tradition. The Orthodox were suspected back home simply because they lived in a Catholic country. I once asked an Orthodox archimandrite why these writers always attack the Catholic Church in their books. He laughed and said that their books would be dismissed in Orthodox countries as heterodox if they did not distance themselves from Rome. I am sure that when these times are long enough in the past to be viewed with historical perspective, the relationship between the Russian Orthodox and French Catholic theologians after World War II, informal and unself-conscious though it was, will be one of the most significant events in the 20th Century Church.
The principal tenet of the resourcement theologians was that if the Church needs renewal and if received solutions fail to solve problems in the modern world, we must go back to the sources to find different possible developments, and hence, new, more adequate solutions. Of course, they did not deny the basic truth of the Church as they saw it; but they believed that some practices and some teachings had become unbalanced and impoverished, and there was a need to look to the Fathers for a deeper understanding of the Church than was current and learn from them a more wholesome practice. As Marcellino d’Ambrosio wrote in Crossroads, “Ressourcement” was the way to “Aggiornamento” – a good Vatican II word. They believe, above all, in Tradition, that the Holy Spirit is equally present in Tradition at all times and that Tradition provides us with a suitable hermeneutic for understanding dogmatic decrees and other documents from councils and popes. This hermeneutic is often called nowadays the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Another tenet is that Nature and Grace, human happiness and Salvation belong to each other. Nature is created by God to share in the Divine Life and is thus incomplete without it. Everything is related in someway to God both as Creator and Redeemer. Human beings have a natural need for God and hence a natural desire for God that shows itself in the quest for the good, the true and the beautiful, and they have a natural sense of the sacred. The dynamism of these natural needs or urges goes beyond created things and will only be fully satisfied by God’s free gift of Grace: they are Nature’s gateway to God’s free gift of salvation.
All this comes together in the Liturgy, or ought to, if the Liturgy is adequate to the purpose; and the saw that the beauty, truth, and goodness of the liturgy were a closed book to the majority of the people, most of whom had stopped going to Mass. Hence, they backed Liturgical Reform before and during Vatican II but were appalled by the results after the Council because, in “the spirit of Vatican II“, largely invented by the media, the sacred and transcendence were replaced by horizontal relationships among the celebrants, and beauty was replaced by entertainment; and this has produced disastrous results, just the results they would have predicted. For them, renewal of the Church had been greatly damaged by the very instrument they had decided was to be used to bring people back.
However, all was not lost because this grouping of theologians gave us two popes; and the way they have acted shows that it is not so much the text of the Misa Normativa that is to blame, but the way it has too often been celebrated, though there is a need, Pope Benedict believes, to recuperate much that is beautiful in the old rite.
The question arises, Will the process of ressourcement leading to aggiornamento, started in Vatican II and partly frustrated by the influence of the media, be further blocked or delayed by Pope Francis, or will it continue. We know that he won’t want to restore the Liturgy to its pre-conciliar glory; but Pope Benedict didn’t want to do this either. The Pope Benedict that wanted to restore the pre-Vatican II liturgy in all its glory is an invention of those who understood his tastes, but not his theology.
Two questions remain:
- Will Pope Francis continue with the agenda of the Ressourcement theologians, even though he is too young to have been a member of that group?
- Will he continue to pursue a”reform of the reform” in liturgical matters?
Hence, during his pontificate, Benedict was still fighting for his vision of the liturgy with its basis in Tradition, which was a major concern of the group. It was to be a traditional liturgy, because Tradition is central to the Ressourcement group; but it was to be a traditional liturgy that had been “opened up” so that ordinary people could have immediate access to the “sacred”. According to de Lubac, experience of the sacred is the basic experience upon which any religion is built. To replace it by anything else, human solidarity, for example, is the equivalent of a religion’s suicide. Grace is built on Nature and can ignore it as its peril. In the liturgical changes it had, at best, been reduced to a secondary consideration and, at worst, completely ignored.
In a word, Pope Benedict wanted to revive the renewal part of the Council as he understood it which he believed had been unfairly partly smothered by the media.
After permitting the general use of the 1964 Mass, he was asked if he could see it taking over from the Misa Normativa, he said that the realities of life were against it, as only a small proportion of the faithful understand Latin. He admitted that when so many wonderful liturgical treasures had been abolished without any protest from the faithful, it was because they had been cut off from the liturgy and had never known these treasures in the first place. He said that he had nothing against communion in the hand and standing for communion, and had given communion in the hand many times, but that he thought it inappropriate for St Peter’s. He restored the right to celebrate the “old Mass” because, as a ressourcement theologian, he considered Tradition to be a superior authority to both pope and bishops, and he considered the “old Mass” to be an expression of that Tradition, and, therefore, unabolishable – not a “conservative” position of any kind: a theological one. He said that neither the pope nor the bishops had a power to abolish it, (or ordain women priests and bishops). On the other hand, he supported Pope John Paul II’s plea to the Orthodox to help us understand Vatican I in the light of the first thousand years of Church history: let Catholic Tradition bring a new look at present Catholic certainties, without denying them, but allowing the first thousand years of Catholic Tradition to interpret them: again, not a “conservative” position in any way, but a ressourcement position, one they applied to the liturgy in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
South America is still a continent that is Catholic enough to celebrate this fact. Its fiestas are a glorious mixture of the sacred and the so-called profane, serious religion and religious play, even Grace and sin, because they are human. During these fiestas, the liturgy has the smell of the street – to quote Pope Francis – and grace is everywhere and turns up where you least expect it, as Charles Peguy, Georges Bernanos and Paul Claudel knew from experience and illustrated in their writings at a time when France was Catholic. In such an environment and culture, the liturgical changes after Vatican II were electric in their effect and fitted the culture like a glove. A truly Catholic culture was able to claim the Mass for itself. “Conservatives” in Europe and America complain of liturgical abuses, but in our continent, abuses have actually decreased. Liturgical abuses, old style: a priest celebrates thirty Masses on the trot – only the central part of course – one after the other, to collect a hundred soles or pesetas a time. (It has even been known to use the same host and wine!!) He probably had a woman, of course, or several, and many “nephews” to support, and this was done by selling the sacraments. Then he was gradually replaced by priests educated in the new rite. Of course, many followed the bad example of American priests who found they had a new freedom to “experiment” and to “adapt” to South American culture, but without the deep sense of the sacred that Latin Americans so often have. For the record, these American missionaries were and are so often heroic in their love for the people; and much will be forgiven them because they have loved much. Moreover, the sense of the sacred flourishes in South America in the most unlikely atmospheres. Hence you cannot expect Pope Francis to have the same attitude and tastes towards liturgy as Pope Benedict has, even if, as I suspect they do, they agree theologically.
i) Right at the announcement of his election, he quoted St Ignatius of Antioch. He is the Bishop of Rome, a church that presides in love. We know he is critical of the Vatican set-up, and he is using the Gospel as his guide for Vatican reform. He talks of all ecclesial authority as a service. If he is using the phrase of St Ignatius as an interpretation of the truth in Vatican I, as a way of digging deeper than the decrees of that Council to give them a new interpretation, at least in pastoral practice, then he is acting as a ressourcement theologian.
In the world, law is backed by force, as you will soon find out if you decide to break it. The Church has to have laws, but they must be an expression of love and faith, both in the one who gives the order and in the one who obeys. Since the time of Constantine, these two very different realities have been confused; but now that the Church is without force, the difference is more visible.
ii) He has no particular interest in the “old Mass” but allowed it and supported those who wished to celebrate it, using the ressourcement argument that it is an expression of Catholic Tradition.
iii) As Archbishop, he was the main compiler of the documents of the Conference of Latin American Bishops (CELAM), and he spoke of these conferences as the “magisterium” of South American bishops. It is unusual to use that word for the teaching office of a regional church. This and other indications he gave while Archbishop, mean, I think, that he is going to take collegiality seriously, which hasn’t happened up till now; but it was on the Ressourcement agenda at Vatican II.
iv) Finally, this theme of a poor church among the poor which is the subject of an unfinished encyclical by Pope Benedict which Pope Francis is going to finish was a major theme in the conciliar call for reform. It is in continuity with a book by Yves Congar OP, a ressourcement theologian, called “Power and Poverty in the Church”, and published by Helicon Baltimore 1964.
(Pour Une Eglise Servante et Pauvre, Ed. du Cerf). If it is out of print then it is the time to print it again – a very inspiring book.
Hence, I believe there is evidence that we are going to have continuity, but we are going to break new ground as Pope Francis concentrates on other aspects of reform that were called for by Vatican II.
Is he going to pursue the “reform of the reform”? I doubt it, but, on his showing as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he won’t stop others from doing so, as long as the reforms do not smell too much of the sacristy.
English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.
Source: http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-tale-of-two-popes-continuity-or.html
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).