Francis II?

If you are Catholic, or just a curious observer of the transition from the Bergolgian pontificate, here are a few random thoughts. 

Roughly four of every five Cardinal Electors (those under 80) were appointed by Francis. Almost all of them share Francis' progressive inclinations, although the degree may vary. I cannot name any pope who went to such lengths to flood the College of Cardinals with like minded ideologues. For those hoping for a return to something resembling small 'o' orthodox Catholicism, or just a degree of post Vatican II normalcy, the odds are not in your favor. 

By my estimation there are only four Cardinal Electors who can be described as staunch "conservatives." Those being Gerhard Müller (77 Germany), Péter Erdő (72 Hungary), Robert Sarah (79 Guinea), and Raymond Burke (76 USA). Of those, Erdő and Sarah have been mentioned in at least some sources as possible successors. In my opinion Erdő is a long shot. His election would would put someone in the mold of the late Benedict XVI, but at 72 much younger, on the papal throne. That would require a remarkable repudiation of the Franciscan legacy by a significant number of those he appointed. As for Sarah, I think he is on the list simply because the various media and news sources needed another conservative name to try and disguise just how stacked the deck actually is. Sarah will be 80 next month and is considered a traditionalist. So his election would not just be a repudiation of Francis but to at least some degree, of the post Vatican II liturgical reforms. If he emerges on the balcony, I would be stunned. 

Are there any moderate contenders? Depending on how you define that term, I'd say yes. The two most prominent names are Peter Turkson (78 Ghana) and Pietro Parolin (70 Italy). An outside possibility would be Wim Eijk (71 Holland). Of the two, Parolin is perhaps the most widely mentioned name in a conclave where there is little consensus on the likely successor. He is known to share Francis' progressive attitudes on the poor and immigrants, though his theological views are a bit more murky. It is generally believed that he leans left, but may not be the doctrinal wrecking ball that Francis was. Traditionalist Catholics are highly suspicious of him as it has long been rumored that he is hostile to the old rite. Parolin is a career diplomat and is believed to be a power broker in the Vatican Curia. One very strong point in his favor, is his nationality. After almost a half century of foreign popes, Italians are keen to see one of their own as Bishop of Rome and primate of the Italian Church. And there are quite a few cardinals from across the ideological spectrum who will likely want to look first and hard at the Italians to see if there is an acceptable compromise among them. 

Zuppi, and Pizzaballa are the two other Italians frequently mentioned. Zuppi is a radical progressive and rumored to have been the one Francis wanted most to succeed him. Pizzaballa is more of a mystery on doctrinal questions, though he has solid credentials as a diplomat. The fact that he has served as the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem would also make him a rather political choice given recent events in that part of the world. That said, he is only 60 which makes him something of a long shot, unless the cardinals are prepared to roll the dice on a pope likely to outlive most of those electing him. 

Back to the "moderates." Peter Turkson is from Africa and shares Francis' progressive views on the poor and immigration. However, and unlike Parolin, he is believed to be doctrinally conservative. Prior to Francis election he had spoken out rather forcefully on the subject of sexual morality, though he has toned that down over the last twelve years. The alphabet people and their lobby would almost certainly oppose his election. For that reason, I disagree with those labeling him a top tier candidate. However, if there are enough moderates to block a radical progressive from being elected, he could end up as a compromise choice. His odds would likely improve if the conclave does not settle on someone in the first two days. Eijk typically gets mentioned farther down the roster. But like Turkson, his chances might improve if the conclave is deadlocked and the progressives lack the votes to install one of their own. Of the various "moderates" named as papabile, he is likely the most conservative. Some observers have labeled him as a conservative. For that reason alone, I think there would be strong resistance to him among progressives. His age, at only 71 would likely add to those reservations with the likelihood of a long pontificate. 

This brings us to the progressives. I'm not going to go too deep here. The list is long and depressing. Rorate has it pretty well covered for those with a strong stomach. Of the progressives, I think Zuppi and Tagle are the two most mentioned. Zuppi, being Italian, has the lead among his fellow cardinals. Though I think Tagle has more name recognition and is the one that most Catholic lefties outside of Italy are hoping for. 

With all of this noted, I am not sure there has been a conclave in modern times where there was as much uncertainty about the outcome. There are so many possibilities, from so many different corners of the globe that I think anyone would be well advised to take a deep breath before making any predictions here. A lot of conservatives have been trying to calm themselves with the old Italian adage that "a fat pope is followed by a skinny one." The problem is that there are very few skinny Cardinals. The one consideration that might temper the radicals, is the fear that another doctrinal bomb thrower could provoke an outright schism. Most unusually, Cardinal Müller has dared to warn of this openly. Even spoken quietly and in private, such a threat would be shocking enough. The fact that he made it in front of the press cannot be seen as anything other than a flashing danger sign to all of the electors. 

A Brief History of the Death & Funerary Rites of the Roman Papacy

I found this to be quite interesting. 

Patriarch of the West

Francis has revived the title renounced by Benedict XVI.

Catholic ecclesiology and a heretical Pope

There is no authority to declare or consider an elected and generally accepted Pope as an invalid Pope. The constant practice of the Church makes it evident that even in the case of an invalid election this invalid election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected by the overwhelming majority of the cardinals and bishops.

Even in the case of a heretical pope he will not lose his office automatically and there is no body within the Church to declare him deposed because of heresy. Such actions would come close to a kind of a heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism. The heresy of conciliarism or episcopalism says basically that there is a body within the Church (Ecumenical Council, Synod, College of Cardinals, College of Bishops), which can issue a legally binding judgment over the Pope.

The theory of the automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy remains only an opinion, and even St. Robert Bellarmine noticed this and did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium itself. The perennial papal Magisterium never taught such an opinion. In 1917, when the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) came into force, the Magisterium of the Church eliminated from the new legislation the remark of the Decretum Gratiani in the old Corpus Iuris Canonici, which stated that a Pope, who deviates from right doctrine, can be deposed. Never in history did the Magisterium of the Church admit any canonical procedures of deposition of a heretical pope. The Church has no power over the pope formally or judicially. The surer Catholic tradition says, that in the case of a heretical pope, the members of the Church can avoid him, resist him, refuse to obey him, all of which can be done without requiring a theory or opinion that says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed consequently.

Therefore, we must follow the surer way (via tutior) and abstain from defending the mere opinion of theologians (even they be Saints like St. Robert Bellarmine), which says that a heretical pope automatically loses his office or can be deposed by the Church therefore.

Read the rest here.

HT: Dr. Tighe

See also this and this.

Rare Film Documentary of the Opening of Vatican II

I think most readers of this blog will agree that Vatican II, based on its fruits, was a near unmitigated catastrophe for the Roman Church. But this film footage, most of which I have never seen, is quite extraordinary and shows some of the ceremonial of the pre-conciliar papacy. On a side note John XXIII looks exhausted and unwell as he is being carried about on the sedia gestatoria.

Nicea II and Papal Supremacy

The Coronation of Pope John XXIII

Rare film footage from RAI of the coronation of Pope John XXIII, the second to last pope to observe the thousand year old custom. Appx 2 hrs 45 mins with naration in Italian.

A Papal Jubilee

Some interesting details from the jubilee honoring the 50th anniversary of Leo XIII's episcopal consecration. (page 17 right column)

How the Patron Saint of Catholic Traditionalism Helped Start the Revolution

In the modern struggles and disagreements over the Liturgy, there tends to be a list of friends and opponents depending on one’s stance. For those of us with a more traditional leaning, Pope St. Pius X looms large as a friend and an image of tradition. He is usually seen as a defender of the tradition and a great proponent of what is called today the Extraordinary Form or Traditional Latin Mass (TLM)—so much so that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) takes its name from him.

And yet things, people, and movements are seldom as simple as we would like them to be. Despite many good reasons for admiring Pope St. Pius X’s attention to the Sacred Liturgy, he also (arguably) helped lay the groundwork for the revolution that would follow, not so much by his ideas but by his rather sweeping use of papal authority to influence and change the Liturgy in his day.

Read the rest here.

In fairness, I think Catholic Traddies revere Pius X less for his liturgical contributions than for his unreserved condemnation of Modernism, with which, all other differences aside, I suspect we Orthodox could heartily agree. Still there is some fascinating history here.

The next Pope...

Lots of speculation out there. Let me throw out a name I haven't read yet... Antonio Cardinal Cañizares.

Dr. Tighe: Is the Papacy in Need of Structural Reform?

Dr. Tighe has written a review of Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity, by Adam A.J. DeVille.

Despite its subtitle, this book, written by an assistant professor of theology at the University of St. Francis in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and a member of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, does not to any significant extent examine the “prospects” of unity between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Rather, in light of John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint, and particularly the late pontiff’s request therein to leaders of other Christian churches and communities for “dialogue” on how papal primacy (or the Petrine “ministry of unity”) could be exercised in a mutually acceptable way, this book considers Catholic and Orthodox views of the papacy since 1960, and advances proposals for a major restructuring of the papacy that would separate the role and functions of the pope as “Patriarch of the West” (or “of Rome”) from those that pertain to his Petrine “universal primacy.”

After an introduction that adumbrates the arguments and conclusions of the book, and which postulates, accurately enough, that the papacy’s claims for itself and its ministry constitutes the fundamental obstacle to East-West ecumenical progress, the book examines Ut Unum Sint (UUS) and the very few official Orthodox responses the Pope’s request evoked — and why there were so few of them. It proceeds with a discussion of the views of twenty-four Orthodox theologians who have written on the papacy in recent decades, and the views of eighteen Catholic theologians. Two of the latter are Eastern Catholics: the current Mel­kite Patriarch of Antioch, Gregorios III, and the Ukrainian Catholic Michel Dymyd. The Western Catholics include Joseph Ratzinger (the fact that all but one of the works cited come from between 1964 and 1971 is, as we shall see, significant); Yves Congar; the Polish ecumenist Waclaw Hry­niewicz; Geoffrey Robinson, the retired liberal auxiliary bishop of Sydney, Australia; and Walter Cardinal Kasper, the recently retired president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Some of the Orthodox theologians whose views are discussed are, if not exactly hostile to the papacy, then at least negative and “stand-offish” in tone, while others are much more positive about the ecumenical potential of a “reformed” papacy. DeVille himself draws three positive and three negative conclusions from their writings. Positively, they all acknowledge that the primacy of Rome is a historic fact, and that Rome is the only plausible claimant to such a universal primacy; many of them acknowledge the desirability and necessity of such a primacy, given the current “jurisdictional chaos” of Orthodoxy; and they envisage Rome’s proper function as being “a center of appeal [from the decisions of other churches and patriarchates] of coordination and of solicitude for all the churches.” Negatively, they all reject papal universal jurisdiction as defined by the First Vatican Council; they reject a “juridical understanding” of papal primacy; and they insist that it is as “first bishop” and “patriarch of the first see of Rome” that he must exercise this universal primacy. The gap thus seems nearly absolute.

Read the rest here.

Pope Benedict XVI receives new tiara

Via Fr. Z

At today's weekly general audience the Holy Father received a new tiara made for him and presented by Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

The tiara was commissioned by Dieter Philippi (http://www.dieter-philippi.de/), a German Catholic businessman who has a great devotion to the papacy as well as to the call to Christian unity.

The tiara was created in Sofia, Bulgaria by Orthodox Christians of the Liturgix studio (http://www.liturgix.com/).

Today a small delegation of Roman Catholics and Bulgarian Orthodox on pilgrimage in Rome had the honor to present the tiara to the Holy Father in the name of Christian unity.

Read the rest here.

On a side note, I am not certain about the involvement of Orthodox Christians and would caution against reading too much into this though I can all but guarantee that some of our Roman Catholic friends will latch onto this as yet further proof of imminent re-union.  The website for Liturgix does not identify themselves as Orthodox.  Rather they simply declare that they cater to both Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics.

At one time it was customary for the citizens of whatever city a newly elected Pope came from to commission a new tiara for the Pope for his coronation.  Obviously this custom died out after Paul VI abandoned the tiara in the 1960's.  All three of his successors have declined to revive its use with Benedict going so far as to remove the tiara entirely from his coat of arms.

Still, it's an impressive addition to the Vatican's collection of papal bling. 

The Papacy - The Patriarchy of the West- and Orthodox Ecclesiology

I draw the reader's attention to a fascinating com-box discussion going on over at Fr. Z's blog (see this post) on the Papal decision to drop the title Patriarch of the West and its implications in ecumenical relations. It also moves into an interesting discussion of Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology and approaches to Primacy.

Long time readers of this blog will recall that while I staunchly reject the ultra-montanist (and IMO heretical) claims of the First Vatican Council, I have also repeatedly opined that Orthodoxy has a somewhat underdeveloped concept of primacy. It is a subject that too many Orthodox get nervous about because anytime someone suggests that there is more to it (primacy) than sitting at the head of the table or being the first bishop in the procession, one is instantly accused of being a crypto-papist. Such knee jerk fears aside however, clearly primacy does indeed amount to more than the eccelsiological equivalent to the status of the Queen of Denmark. The Patriarch of Constantinople should be, and IMO is, more than just the head we would put on Orthodox postage stamps. (And I say this as someone who has occasionally been sharply critical of H.A.H.)

I particularly commend this comment by PaterAugustinus as one worth serious attention. It contains a host of interesting points, some of which I am not altogether comfortable with. But that comment alone could be the subject of a really fascinating debate. In any event a serious discussion about primacy and its role in Orthodox ecclesiology is long overdue. I wonder if perhaps that is not something that should be added to the agenda of a certain Great and Holy Synod that has been much rumored and imminently forthcoming for nigh on a century.

The Function of the Unity of the Church and the Fallacious Theological Presuppositions of Papal Primacy

Hat tip: A Sinner

(A talk given by Mr. Dimitrios Tselengidis, Professor at the University of Thessaloniki, at the Metropolis of Piraeus' Conference on the Theme "‘Primacy,' Synodicality and the Unity of the Church" Peace and Friendship Stadium, 28 April 2010)...

...But also every other attempt at unity with the heterodox which skirts the above-mentioned theological presuppositions for the "faith once delivered (Jude 1:3)," is actually impossible. Nevertheless, the delegates of the local Orthodox Churches with their center of co-ordination (the Ecumenical Patriarchate) appear to have another opinion about the unity of the Church. This is why it is particularly typical that in the first paragraph of the submitted draft of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue with the Roman-Catholics in Cyprus, in October of 2009, it is cited that in the agreed upon Joint Statement of Ravenna (2007) Roman-Catholics and Orthodox refer to "the age of the undivided Church," (See Statement of Ravenna 41). It is clear that this phrasing presupposes for the members of the Joint International Commission that today the undivided Church does not exist. Therefore, today the Church is divided, despite the faith of the Church, which we confess verbally in the Symbol of our Faith. However, this means the falling away from the Church of all those who consciously support all that the Statement of Ravenna contains about the identity of the Church, since it indirectly but clearly does not accept a part of the dogmatic teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council.

However, already much earlier the Roman-Catholics had deviated from the dogmatic teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council with the addition of the Filioque. The Filioque was conceived and appeared in the West when the experience of the charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit in the ecclesiastical assembly of the Pope's see withdrew. Essentially, the Filioque was the crystallization of the estrangement from the living experience of the uncreated grace and energy of the Triune God, through which immediate and real communion with man is realized in the chief conveyor of the unity of God and man, that is, in the Church.

Consequently, due to our dogmatic disparity from the Roman-Catholics there cannot be - neither actual nor formal - union with them. Nonetheless, the strange thing (dogmatically and ecclesiologically) is that the Statement of Ravenna, consistent with the previous Joint Statements of Munich, Bari, Valaam and Balamand, refers to a common apostolic faith, the common mysteries (sacraments) and the ecclesiastical character of the heterodox. Thus, the false and blasphemous impression is given that with the joint Statement of Ravenna Christ is deceived, Who assured us that branches cut from the vine cannot bear fruit. The members of the Joint International Commission affirm in their statements, that in spite of the heretical divergences, the Roman-Catholics constitute a Church and that they possess genuine sacraments. It is theologically and logically odd that the representatives of the local Orthodox Churches do not realize the enormous dogmatic error of the Roman-Catholics concerning the created nature of their sacraments, an error which literally invalidates the aforementioned claim of the Roman-Catholics, which Orthodox representatives also endorse. The Roman-Catholics themselves assure us with their dogmatic teaching about created grace, that they are empirically devoid of the experience in the Holy Spirit of the Church and of the theanthropic nature of its unity in the Holy Spirit. Consequently, with the existing presuppositions it is completely theologically unwise and pointless for unity of an ecclesiastical nature to be attempted with them. In addition, such unity is practically and completely impossible, since it goes against the theological presuppositions of the Church and the ontological content of its nature...

Read the rest here.

A gentle reminder, please refrain from posting overheated comments.

The Heresies of Bad Liturgy and Ultramontaninism

I refer the reader to two posts on the heresies of bad liturgy and ultramontaninism from one of the more promising new blogs out there.

Moscow takes aim at (new?) Rome

Despite all the ink spilled over the subject of my preceding post, many Orthodox (including yours truly) will tell you that the Filioque is something that can probably be overcome. In fact most of the differences between Orthodoxy and Rome are in my opinion not insurmountable. This doesn't mean it would be a cake walk. But with a lot of charity and patience and a healthy dose of creativity most of the separating issues probably can be overcome to a degree sufficient to permit some sort of restoration of communion. The key word there is "most."

To me and I think again most (I only avoid the term "all" out of an abundance of caution) Orthodox the deal breaker is papal primacy and Vatican I. The language in the decrees of the First Vatican Council regarding the universal jurisdiction of the Pope and his infallibility are regarded as heresy by almost all Orthodox. And unfortunately the language used in those decrees is so crystal clear and unambiguous that there is not really any wiggle room for creative reinterpretation or "doctrinal development."

Wherefore we teach and declare that,

• by divine ordinance,
• the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
• this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
  • episcopal and
  • immediate.
• Both clergy and faithful,
  • of whatever rite and dignity,
  • both singly and collectively,
• are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
  • not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
  • but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
    

And...

So, then,

• if anyone says that
  • the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
    • not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
    • not only in matters of
      • faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
      • discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
  • he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
  • this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
  let him be anathema.
  

This is just not acceptable to the Orthodox Church.

In fairness we Orthodox, partly from historical circumstances, have been very clear in articulating what primacy is not, and not particularly clear about what it is. Indeed until recent times the subject has not really been much on anyone's agenda. There really was no need. However some years ago the late +John Paul Magnus of blessed memory issued a challenge to the Orthodox world to give our interpretation of the function of the Roman See. The silence was deafening. Now we are coming to the point where the silence will need to be broken. At the forthcoming session of the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue the topic is to be the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Church. I would give a lot of money that I don't have to be a fly on the wall of that meeting (with a universal translator).

As an interesting background to this, the chilly relations between Moscow and Constantinople seem to be growing cooler. Moscow has long accused the Patriarchate of New Rome of meddling in the affairs of the other churches (Russia's in particular) and of asserting a jurisdiction it does not have. Whereas +Bartholomew and the Synod of Bishops in Constantinople have been taking a more expansive view of things. Met. +John of Pergagmum, one of the foremost theologians in the Orthodox Church today, has strongly hinted at a broader interpretation of primacy than what has been normative within Orthodoxy. Of course nothing he has written even comes close to supporting the monarchical claims of the First Vatican Council. It is with this fascinating mix of church politics as a background that we see Moscow announcing that it is preparing an official position on the subject of primacy in the Church.

The Interfax News Service reports...

‘Our principal affirmation is this: primacy in the Church is necessary, also on the universal level, but on the level of the Universal Church it cannot be the primacy of jurisdiction but only the primacy of honour’, Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, Russian Church representative to European organizations, told Interfax on Monday.

‘There can be no compromises’ in this matter for the Moscow Patriarchate, he said. The aim of the theological dialogue is not to make a compromise but to identify the original understanding of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the early undivided Church, he noted.

‘Historically, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Christian Church, from our point of view, was that of honour, not jurisdiction. That is to say, the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome was never applied to all the Churches’, the bishop stressed.

No real surprises there. However, one might begin to wonder just who Moscow is taking aim at when reading a little farther down we note...

‘We consider it (the primacy of Constantinople - IF) exclusively as primacy of honour, while the See of Constantinople itself tends occasionally to give a broad interpretation to this primacy. These are the questions I believe around which principal problems will emerge’, Bishop Hilarion said.

We aint called "byzantine" for nothing.

All of the politics aside, the bottom line remains. Vatican I is the show stopper. I know of no Orthodox hierarch or credible theologian who would accept it. All of the other debates won't amount to a hill of beans because Vat. I is a nonnegotiable for the Roman Catholics and also for the Orthodox. In order to overcome it one or the other would have to cease to be what they are. And that is not gonna happen.