Catholics Here : Francis & Benedict

hinault

I'd like to get the views here of fellow Catholics regarding the resignation of Pope Benedict and the current papacy of Pope Francis.

In 2013, Pope Benedict announced his retirement as pope. It was an extraordinary decision and the ramifications from which saw the election of Pope Francis - and the self imposed exile of the former pope.

The explanation for Pope Benedict's resignation was on health grounds.
The church was informed that Benedict was within his rights to resign.

In the meantime, Pope Francis tenure has ushered in a very different papacy to that of Pope Benedict. The change of emphasis in this papacy has led to all sorts of additional ramifications being unleashed.

However in the last few days, the vatican assistant to Benedict and Francis, Archbishop Gaenswein has issued an extraordinary set of statements about
the current situation where two men both of whom occupied the petrine office are alive, but who are now part of an extended petrine office!

"Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”

How can what Gaenswein said be justified? I'm assuming that his reported comments are accurate, therefore how can the papacy contain two popes?
What is the template for this? Where did this template derive from? How long has this template been valid?

Jesus appointed one pope. Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to one apostle, Peter.
Jesus conferred sole authority upon one apostle, Peter.

Do catholics here subscribe to what Gaenswein has said?

uck51js9zml2yt

Lots of questions Hinault....would love to hear your views!

alma73

Pope Benedict has made it clear a number of times that he is not sitting on St. Peter's Cathedra. He renounced the Papacy voluntarily and made it clear he would support the person the Cardinals elected. He is a Pope, but he does not hold th office or the Power of the Pope. There is not doubt who is Pope, however there also has to be a place for the Pope Emeritus.

lazybones32

Benedict resigned 3 years and 4 weeks ago, aged 86, and in the last few months more reports have revealed that his health is fading but his mind is still lucid.
Benedict didn't want to become Pope. His intention, on the death of JPII, was to retire and live with his brother (who is also a priest) and spend more time writing. Even from the beginning of his Papacy, he indicated that he mightn't have the physical ability to be Pope for very long: he was 78 when elected...long past his well-deserved retirement age.
He was within his rights to resign, though he was the first to do so in about 700 years, but there is the proper framework for a Pope to resign which was only revised in 1986 or 1996 by JPII. The Cardinals are free to not accept his resignation, if they so choose.
Death is usually the P45 for a Pope but seeing as he's still alive (but feels unable to competently fulfill his duties by his own admission) he still is honoured with the title of Pope Emeritus. Francis was elected lawfully and Benedict acknowledges Francis as the Pope.
The RCC has two Popes but not because of division or a power struggle.
Benedict isn't exiled. He lives in a convent within the Vatican but chooses to live the life of a contemplative. He no longer writes books but dictates letters, receives guests and plays the piano.
Benedict still has the title - which he doesn't use - but Francis has the authority. Francis said something along the lines of 'it's like living with your grandfather - a very wise grandfather' when speaking on the peculiar situation of two Popes being in the Vatican at the same time.

Some people see this situation as being an omen of end-times or the rise of Antichrist. True, there are many, many prophecies about there being two Popes, one lawful and one unlawful, but the other aspects of the prophecies are not being fulfilled. The lawful Pope will have to flee Rome because the agents of the unlawful one are targeting him. There will be considerable physical violence being exercised against the Church during that time and much disorder and confusion.
Francis may be unjustly accused of being an anti-pope but this seems to be based largely on the prophecy of St. Malachy. The recent document A.L was supposed to be Francis' attempt at undermining the Church and leading it in a direction contrary to the gospel and Tradition but it hasn't happened...the critics predictions haven't come through...yet.

Manach

First, welcome back Hinault.

On the main point, one of the original and ancient titles of the Papacy is "Pontifex Maximus", dating from Roman times. This suggests that can only be one spiritual head of the Church. That person would the one who has followed the procedural norms, Pope Francis.

I'd regard it as a positive step that Popes can now in future lay aside their office when the burden proves too great but that as well they might provide advice and guidance to their successor. Pope erasmus Benedict is a person whose body of work will stand with the fine writing of the Church and hopefully he is currently still working to add to this. However, given the historical record of damage that was done during schismatic times, then I'd find the comments of Archbishop Gaenswein puzzling.

Nick Park

Manach wrote: »

Pope erasmus Benedict

The Pope who laid the egg that Francis hatched?

Sorry, saw the typo and couldn't resist the Church History pun.

hinault

alma73 wrote: »

Pope Benedict has made it clear a number of times that he is not sitting on St. Peter's Cathedra. He renounced the Papacy voluntarily and made it clear he would support the person the Cardinals elected. He is a Pope, but he does not hold th office or the Power of the Pope. There is not doubt who is Pope, however there also has to be a place for the Pope Emeritus.

Archbishop Gaenswein's published comments appear to indicate that Benedict's abdication was purposeful to creating a dual-papacy.

Whether that indication was deliberate and accurate is one debate.

I note that Gaenswein is a doctor of canon law.

hinault

My two cents worth. I've always been troubled as to the abdication of Pope Benedict XVI. It always seemed to me that in him we had a man who placed duty as being of primary importance, in his personal capacity (as a German) and in his professional capacity as priest loyal to the church. When he announced his resignation, I was shocked to tell you the truth. I did not believe that he could freely choose to leave the office of pope, given his unparalleled knowledge and insight concerning all things ecclesiastical.

If you have ever read his writings, it will be apparent to you that in him we have a man of great intellect, great conviction and above all great faith. For him to do what he did appears, at least externally, to be at odds with all of the virtues I have listed.

On retirement, he said that he did not possess the strength (physical? mental?) to adequately carry the burden of office. Part of me can understand to an extent that great burden. The Office of Pope makes demands that no other role on Earth could inflict. With great office comes great responsibility.
So if the heart, or mind, or body begins to fail, the onerousness of the office becomes disproportionately heavier. I understand this.
But even if this was the case, would a man as resolute as Benedict concede by walking away freely?

Benedict went in to retirement and we had the election of Pope Francis. We were told that Benedict would remain loyal to the new pope and that he would lead a monastic prayerful life for the remainder of the days granted to him by God.
I watched carefully Benedicts physical demeanour as he left office. He looked very tired and very worn out. I was concerned that perhaps he did have a very serious illness and that perhaps his time was limited.

During the next three years, accounts of Benedict's new life were made known. We heard that he prays intensely, that he receives visitors, that he communicates with Francis, but all of this is done in private away from public scrutiny.

Then we began to read and hear about people who physically met with Benedict. Each said that the emeritus pope was well physically. In fact his former student Fr.Vincent Twomey said that he was very surprised to see the apparent improvement in Benedicts health in the year and several months after he had left the Petrine Office.
I figured that a release from sustained pressure can lead to a recovery and perhaps even an improvement in the physical disposition of the person released from all that pressure.

So over three and half years later, what Archbishop Gaenswein disclosed tells a somewhat different aspect to the 2013 resignation.
It would appear that the resignation was to create a dual papacy apparently.

Frankly I don't know what we have witnessed in the past three and a half years. I don't know if Benedict left office freely. I can only take his explanation for what it is.
I'm as shocked at Gaenswein's statement as I am at the resignation still.

But above all I am shocked at the muted response by the faithful to all of this. It is as if catholics were seeing all of this happen and instead of reacting - reacting one way or another - the faithful were indifferent.
The muted response, the lack of response, appear to show me a flock that is in neutral to the events unfolding before our eyes.
We see it. We know that it is happening but from us it elicits no response.

I don't know if the faithful are numbed by shock, or by incapacity, or by indifference.

I've been asked if i think that we're in diabolical times.
All I can say is that we're in times of extreme disorientation. Whether that disorientation is diabolically inspired or not, I simply do not know.

Whatever is going on, I do know that God will never abandon His church. That is the only real certainty.

uck51js9zml2yt

Interesting views Hinault.
As I would see it (as far as Rome is concerned I'm still a member) is that in general peoples commitment to the RCC is a mainly nominal one. This has been made evident in Ireland over recent years.

Added to this have been great economic and social upheavals worldwide which have had there effect on people. Given the nominality (if its a word) of people I can understand that immediate needs are more pressing and usurp a need to be shocked by events in Vatican City with is far away and really make very few impositions on people and their daily lives. The average man and woman on the street don't really care if there are 2 popes.

From observations, Francis seems to be a man of the people and (sorry to be blunt), not stuck up his backside debating the finer points of theology.

His interactions with and responses to people have a had a far more positive effect that all the encyclicals which have come out of Rome. Personally, I have a lot of admiration for the man and generally think he's a good guy. Its evident that his behaviour in his own parish has translated to his residence in Rome. He recognised that he is nothing more than a servant and is not a "prince" to rule over people.

It will be interesting to see the reception he gets when he visits. Will he get the million+ in the park?

alma73

@Hinault someone in the Vatican I know said that the only way Pope Benedict could make any real change was to resign... so he did. The curia did not support Pope Benedict and he was very much abandoned. The only way you can change the curia is to change the Pope, which he did. When Pope Francis arrived he had the unprecedented fortune of knowing where the landmines were.

Pope Benedict is a really Holy and humble man, and know that to allow reform and for the good of the Church he needed to step aside. He also knew Bergoglio stood a good chance of becoming Pope (as he was one of the Papabili 8 years before), Had Benedict waited 2 years then Bergoglio would not be going to Rome and there would be Pope Francis. He took all the comfortable Vatican Curia establishment by surprise, they thought the could manipulate him until he was in his nineties.. (his elder brother is still alive) . Pope Benedict was having nothing of it. He is the most radical reformer that we ever had.

So Pope Benedict is the great reformer. I knew him while he was a Cardinal in Rome 25 years ago. Maybe he will have more of a role in the Churches life, but he can only do this with Pope Francis's approval.

hinault

alma73 wrote: »

@Hinault someone in the Vatican I know said that the only way Pope Benedict could make any real change was to resign... so he did. The curia did not support Pope Benedict and he was very much abandoned. The only way you can change the curia is to change the Pope, which he did. When Pope Francis arrived he had the unprecedented fortune of knowing where the landmines were.

Pope Benedict is a really Holy and humble man, and know that to allow reform and for the good of the Church he needed to step aside. He also knew Bergoglio stood a good chance of becoming Pope (as he was one of the Papabili 8 years before), Had Benedict waited 2 years then Bergoglio would not be going to Rome and there would be Pope Francis.

So Pope Benedict is the great reformer. I knew him while he was a Cardinal in Rome 25 years ago. Maybe he will have more of a role in the Churches life, but he can only do this with Pope Francis's approval.

That's a very interesting analysis and thank you for posting this.

hinault

A translation in to English of the full speech given by Archbishop Gaenswein

During one of the last conversations that the pope’s biographer, Peter Seewald of Munich, was able to have with Benedict XVI, as he was bidding him goodbye, he asked him: “Are you the end of the old or the beginning of the new?” The pope’s answer was brief and sure: “The one and the other,” he replied. The recorder was already turned off; that is why this final exchange is not found in any of the book-interviews with Peter Seewald, not even the famous Light of the World. It only appeared in an interview he granted to Corriere della Sera in the wake of Benedict XVI’s resignation, in which the biographer recalled those key words which are, in a certain way, a maxim of the book by Roberto Regoli, which we are presenting here today at the Gregorian.

Indeed, I must admit that perhaps it is impossible to sum up the pontificate of Benedict XVI in a more concise manner. And the one who says it, over the years, has had the privilege of experiencing this Pope up close as a “homo historicus,” the Western man par excellence who has embodied the wealth of Catholic tradition as no other; and — at the same time — has been daring enough to open the door to a new phase, to that historical turning point which no one five years ago could have ever imagined. Since then, we live in an historic era which in the 2,000-year history of the Church is without precedent.

As in the time of Peter, also today the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church continues to have one legitimate Pope. But today we live with two living successors of Peter among us — who are not in a competitive relationship between themselves, and yet both have an extraordinary presence! We may add that the spirit of Joseph Ratzinger had already marked decisively the long pontificate of St. John Paul II, whom he faithfully served for almost a quarter of a century as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Many people even today continue to see this new situation as a kind of exceptional (not regular) state of the divinely instituted office of Peter (eine Art göttlichen Ausnahmezustandes).

But is it already time to assess the pontificate of Benedict XVI? Generally, in the history of the Church, popes can correctly be judged and classified only ex post. And as proof of this, Regoli himself mentions the case of Gregory VII, the great reforming pope of the Middle Ages, who at the end of his life died in exile in Salerno – a failure in the opinion of many of his contemporaries. And yet Gregory VII was the very one who, amid the controversies of his time, decisively shaped the face of the Church for the generations that followed. Much more daring, therefore, does Professor Regoli seem today in already attempting to take stock of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, while he is still alive.

The amount of critical material which he reviewed and analyzed to this end is massive and impressive. Indeed, Benedict XVI is and remains extraordinarily present also through his writings: both those produced as pope — the three volumes on Jesus of Nazareth and 16 (!) volumes of Teachings he gave us during his papacy — and as Professor Ratzinger or Cardinal Ratzinger, whose works could fill a small library.

And so, Regoli’s work is not lacking in footnotes, which are as numerous as the memories they awaken in me. For I was present when Benedict XVI, at the end of his mandate, removed the Fisherman’s ring, as is customary after the death of a pope, even though in this case he was still alive! I was present when, on the other hand, he decided not to give up the name he had chosen, as Pope Celestine V had done when, on December 13, 1294, a few months after the start of his ministry, be again became Pietro dal Morrone.

Since February 2013 the papal ministry is therefore no longer what it was before. It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation which Benedict XVI has profoundly and permanently transformed during his exceptional pontificate (Ausnahmepontifikat), regarding which the sober Cardinal Sodano, reacting simply and directly immediately after the surprising resignation, deeply moved and almost stunned, exclaimed that the news hit the cardinals who were gathered “like a bolt from out of the blue.”

It was the morning of that very day when, in the evening, a bolt of lightning with an incredible roar struck the tip of St. Peter’s dome positioned just over the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles. Rarely has the cosmos more dramatically accompanied a historic turning point. But on the morning of that February 11, the dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano, concluded his reply to Benedict XVI’s statement with an initial and similarly cosmic assessment of the pontificate, when he concluded, saying: “Certainly, the stars in the sky will always continue to shine, and so too will the star of his pontificate always shine in our midst.”

Equally brilliant and illuminating is the thorough and well documented exposition by Don Regoli of the different phases of the pontificate. Especially its beginning in the April 2005 conclave, from which Joseph Ratzinger, after one of the shortest elections in the history of the Church, emerged elected after only four ballots following a dramatic struggle between the so-called “Salt of the Earth Party,” around Cardinals López Trujíllo, Ruini, Herranz, Rouco Varela or Medina and the so-called “St. Gallen Group” around Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy-O’Connor; a group that recently the same Cardinal Danneels of Brussels so amusedly called “a kind of Mafia-Club.” The election was certainly also the result of a clash, whose key Ratzinger himself, as dean of the College of Cardinals, had furnished in the historic homily of April 18, 2005 in St. Peter’s; precisely, where to a “dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires” he contrasted another measure: “the Son of God, the true man” as “the measure of true humanism.” Today we read this part of Regoli’s intelligent analysis almost like a breathtaking detective novel of not so long ago; whereas the “dictatorship of relativism” has for a long time sweepingly expressed itself through the many channels of the new means of communication which, in 2005, barely could be imagined.

The name that the new pope took immediately after his election therefore already represented a plan. Joseph Ratzinger did not become Pope John Paul III, as perhaps many would have wished. Instead, he went back to Benedict XV — the unheeded and unlucky great pope of peace of the terrible years of the First World War — and to St. Benedict of Norcia, patriarch of monasticism and patron of Europe. I could appear as a star witness to testify that, over the previous years, Cardinal Ratzinger never pushed to rise to the highest office of the Catholic Church.

Instead, he was already dreaming of a condition that would have allowed him to write several last books in peace and tranquility. Everyone knows that things went differently. During the election, then, in the Sistine Chapel, I was a witness that he saw the election as a “true shock” and was “upset,” and that he felt “dizzy” as soon as he realized that “the axe” of the election would fall on him. I am not revealing any secrets here, because it was Benedict XVI himself who confessed all of this publicly on the occasion of the first audience granted to pilgrims who had come from Germany. And so it isn’t surprising that it was Benedict XVI who immediately after his election invited the faithful to pray for him, as this book again reminds us.

Regoli maps out the various years of ministry in a fascinating and moving way, recalling the skill and confidence with which Benedict XVI exercised his mandate. And what emerged from the time when, just a few months after his election, he invited for a private conversation both his old, fierce antagonist Hans Küng as well as Oriana Fallaci, the agnostic and combative grande dame of Jewish origin, from the Italian secular mass media; or when he appointed Werner Arber, the Swiss Evangelical and Nobel Prize winner, as the first non-Catholic President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Regoli does not cover up the accusation of an insufficient knowledge of men that was often leveled against the brilliant theologian in the shoes of the Fisherman; a man capable of truly brilliantly evaluating texts and difficult books, and who nevertheless, in 2010, frankly confided to Peter Seewald how difficult he found decisions about people because “no one can read another man’s heart.” How true it is!

Regoli rightly calls 2010 a “black year” for the pope, precisely in relation to the tragic and fatal accident that befell Manuela Camagni, one of the four Memores Domini belonging to the small “papal family.” I can certainly confirm it. In comparison with this misfortune the media sensationalism of those years — from the case of traditionalist bishop, Williamson, to a series of increasingly malicious attacks against the pope — while having a certain effect, did not strike the pope’s heart as much as the death of Manuela, who was torn so suddenly from our midst. Benedict was not an “actor pope,” and even less an insensitive “automaton pope”; even on the throne of Peter he was and he remained a man; or, as Conrad Ferdinand Meyer would say, he was not a “clever book,” he was “a man with his contradictions.” That is how I myself have daily been able to come to know and appreciate him. And so he has remained until today.

Regoli observes, however, that after the last encyclical, Caritas in veritate of December 4, 2009, a dynamic, innovative papacy with a strong drive from a liturgical, ecumenical and canonical perspective, suddenly appeared to have “slowed down,” been blocked, and bogged down. Although it is true that the headwinds increased in the years that followed, I cannot confirm this judgment. Benedict’s travels to the UK (2010), to Germany and to Erfurt, the city of Luther (2011), or to the heated Middle East — to concerned Christians in Lebanon (2012) — have all been ecumenical milestones in recent years. His decisive handling to solve the issue of abuse was and remains a decisive indication on how to proceed. And when, before him, has there ever been a pope who — along with his onerous task — has also written books on Jesus of Nazareth, which perhaps will also be regarded as his most important legacy?

It isn’t necessary here that I dwell on how he, who was so struck by the sudden death of Manuela Camagni, later also suffered the betrayal of Paolo Gabriele, who was also a member of the same “papal family.” And yet it is good for me to say at long last, with all clarity, that Benedict, in the end, did not step down because of a poor and misguided chamber assistant, or because of the “tidbits” coming from his apartment which, in the so-called “Vatileaks affair,” circulated like fool’s gold in Rome but were traded in the rest of the world like authentic gold bullion. No traitor or “raven” [the Italian press’s nickname for the Vatileaks source] or any journalist would have been able to push him to that decision. That scandal was too small for such a thing, and so much greater was the well-considered step of millennial historical significance that Benedict XVI made.

The exposition of these events by Regoli also merits consideration because he does not advance the claim that he sounds and fully explains this last, mysterious step; not further enriching the swarm of legends with more assumptions that have little or nothing to do with reality. And I, too, a firsthand witness of the spectacular and unexpected step of Benedict XVI, I must admit that what always comes to mind is the well-known and brilliant axiom with which, in the Middle Ages, John Duns Scotus justified the divine decree for the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God:

“Decuit, potuit, fecit.”

That is to say: it was fitting, because it was reasonable. God could do it, therefore he did it. I apply the axiom to the decision to resign in the following way: it was fitting, because Benedict XVI was aware that he lacked the necessary strength for the extremely onerous office. He could do it, because he had already thoroughly thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of popes emeritus for the future. So he did it.

The momentous resignation of the theologian pope represented a step forward primarily by the fact that, on February 11, 2013, speaking in Latin in front of the surprised cardinals, he introduced into the Catholic Church the new institution of “pope emeritus,” stating that his strength was no longer sufficient “to properly exercise the Petrine ministry.” The key word in that statement is munus petrinum, translated — as happens most of the time — with “Petrine ministry.” And yet, munus, in Latin, has a multiplicity of meanings: it can mean service, duty, guide or gift, even prodigy. Before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task as participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst); as though, by this, he wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then Joseph Ratzinger took as archbishop of Munich and Freising and which he then naturally maintained as bishop of Rome: “cooperatores veritatis,” which means “fellow workers in the truth.” In fact, it is not in the singular but the plural; it is taken from the Third Letter of John, in which in verse 8 it is written: “We ought to support such men, that we may be fellow workers in the truth.”

Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness”; and this is also why he has not retired to a secluded monastery, but within the Vatican — as if he had only taken a step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy which he, by that step, enriched with the “power station” of his prayer and his compassion located in the Vatican Gardens.

It was “the least expected step in contemporary Catholicism,” Regoli writes, and yet a possibility which Cardinal Ratzinger had already pondered publicly on August 10, 1978 in Munich, in a homily on the occasion of the death of Paul VI. Thirty-five years later, he has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005. By an act of extraordinary courage, he has instead renewed this office (even against the opinion of well-meaning and undoubtedly competent advisers), and with a final effort he has strengthened it (as I hope). Of course only history will prove this. But in the history of the Church it shall remain true that, in the year 2013, the famous theologian on the throne of Peter became history’s first “pope emeritus.” Since then, his role — allow me to repeat it once again — is entirely different from that, for example, of the holy Pope Celestine V, who after his resignation in 1294 would have liked to return to being a hermit, becoming instead a prisoner of his successor, Boniface VIII (to whom today in the Church we owe the establishment of jubilee years). To date, in fact, there has never been a step like that taken by Benedict XVI. So it is not surprising that it has been seen by some as revolutionary, or to the contrary as entirely consistent with the Gospel; while still others see the papacy in this way secularized as never before, and thus more collegial and functional or even simply more human and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.

http://aleteia.org/2016/05/30/complete-english-text-archbishop-georg-gansweins-expanded-petrine-office-speech/3/