Benedict at Rest

Earlier this year I offered my opinion that P. Benedict XVI’s resignation was valid in spite of his blatherings-on about “active” and “contemplative” aspects of the “Petrine ministry.” But there is also the occasional argument, mostly from the outer reaches of Tradistan, that his resignation was invalid because of some external pressure that would have removed the exercise of his free agency. P. Francis, then, would be interpreted as an anti-pope reigning while the true pope still lived.

Any doubts about the freedom of Benedict’s will should be washed away by the recent publication of Last Testament: In His Own Words, a book-length interview conducted by his long time interviewer Peter Seewald. The interview begins with questions about the Pope Emeritus’s current retirement and recent resignation, and his subject is crystal clear on the internal peace surrounding his decision.

For instance, in the chapter “Quiet Days at Mater Ecclesiae,” the once-Cardinal Ratzinger declares he does not miss the papacy:

Not at all, no! On the contrary, I am grateful to God for lifting this responsibility which I could no longer bear from my shoulders. I am grateful that I am now free humbly to walk with Him, to live among, and be visited by, friends.

He admits that the fear of a lingering death—something experienced in concrete reality with his predecessor—was a minor factor in his decision:

For one thing there is the fear that one is imposing on people through a long period of disability. I would find that very distressing. My father always had a fear of death too; it has endured with me, but lessened.

The next chapter “The Resignation” takes on the subject squarely. He asserts that his decision was made after a long period of internal consideration and with minimal advice from anyone else.

An awareness of its [the decision to resign] responsibility and seriousness called for the most thorough examination, time and again having to examine yourself before God and before yourself; that took place, yes, but not in the sense that it tore me to pieces.

He notes that he wrote his resignation announcement in Latin because his Italian is not perfect, and he wanted to ensure that it would contain no ambiguity or mistakes.

Mr. Seewald asks him point-blank:

Are you at peace with God? 

Indeed, I really am.

And he goes on to ask if that peace extended to the turmoil of the Vatileaks and financial scandals rocking the Vatican before the resignation, and the Pope Emeritus’s response is telling:

I said… that one is not permitted to step back when things are going wrong, but only when things are at peace. I could resign because calm had returned to this situation. It was not a case of retreating under pressure or feeling that things couldn’t be coped with. [emphasis added]

He responds to a more blunt question about blackmail:

That’s all complete nonsense…. But no one has tried to blackmail me. If that had been attempted I would not have gone, since you are not permitted to leave because you’re under pressure…. On the contrary, the moment had—thanks to be God [sic]—a sense of having overcome the difficulties and a mood of peace.

When asked about regret, he denies having any: “No! No, no. Every day I see that it was right.”

And again he denies any illegitimate pressure on him to resign:

I therefore emphasized in my speech that I was acting freely. One is not allowed to go away if one is running away. One cannot submit to coercion. One can only turn away when no one has demanded it. And no one demanded it of me during my time as Pope. No one. It came as a complete surprise to everybody.

That is all more than enough to prove my point. If Benedict is indeed being held under some kind of house arrest by Francis and forced to say all these things, one would expect his answers to be terse or stock, or even to refuse to acknowledge them. His later words about Francis in the book are respectful, but one gets the impression that he is rolling his eyes a bit as he gives them; hardly the tone one would expect from a prisoner. One under compulsion could not show the range of emotion he does in this interview, unless we are going to consider Mr. Seewald to be a talented novelist in addition to a journalist.

The current Roman Pontiff may be unwilling to let his yes be yes and his no be no, but the P. Emeritus has no such difficulty. His tone in the book is one of a man at rest, who is enjoying his final days in peace, who can laugh and tear up when remembering his finals days as pope, and who tires of being pulled into what he now considers other people’s business.

Back when Ratzinger was first announced as the newly elected pope, an academic mentor of mine opined that he will need many prayers, because this man is also an academic and not well suited for the kind of public life that John Paul has made of the papacy. I think he was right, and that the resignation was merely a result of a man better suited for reading, writing, and contemplation having finally exhausted himself. John Paul made the papacy an extravert’s playground, leaving any future introvert popes in the lurch.

When asked about the feeling of God’s nearness, Benedict’s answer goes in an interesting direction:

Of course new insights are opened up again and again. I find this touching and comforting. But one also notices that the depths of the Word are never fully plumbed. And some words of wrath, of rejection, of the threat of judgement, certainly become more mysterious and grave and awesome than before.

Let us pray for our retired pope in his final days, especially that he would be prepared to meet the Judge, and that he will find mercy when his time comes, and rest in peace.

Josephology Part 14: Peter and Joseph

(source)

But what, one might ask, of all the popes who have spoken about the virtues and glories of St. Joseph? Surely their support of Josephite devotion must lend some credence to the developments in the post-Tridentine era. It is true that more than a few popes since the nineteenth century have spoken very favorably of this devotional turn, but that is not necessarily a good reason to swallow it whole. The peculiarly Josephite doctrines—his sanctification in the womb, his sinlessness, his lifelong celibacy, his bodily assumption, his coronation as (I can only suppose) Prince of Heaven—these are the specific doctrines worth considering in regards to papal pronouncements.

(I am indebted to the Oblates of St. Joseph website for their collection of papal documents.)

Papa Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti (Pius IX)

Sixteen years after defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, Pius IX issued Quemadmodum Deus in 1870, wherein it notably and incorrectly states that “the Church has always most highly honored and praised blessed Joseph next to his spouse, the Virgin Mother of God.” He closes the decree with the following liturgical and devotional reforms:

Accordingly, it has now pleased our Most Holy Sovereign, Pope Pius IX, in order to entrust himself and all the faithful to the Patriarch St. Joseph’s most powerful patronage, has chosen to comply with the prelates’ desire and has solemnly declared him Patron of the Catholic Church. 

He has also ordered that his feast on March 19th by henceforth celebrated as a double of the first class, without any Octave, however, because of Lent. He arranged, moreover, that a declaration to this effect be promulgated through the present decree of The Sacred Congregation of Rites on this day sacred to the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God, the most chaste Joseph’s Spouse. All things to the contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

He followed up this document with Inclytum Patriarcham, concerning the adjustment of the liturgical feasts and texts for St. Joseph. To wit:

We, confirming and also amplifying with Our present letter the aforesaid regulation of that decree, do command and enjoin the following: 

We desire that the Creed be always added in the mass on the natal feast of St. Joseph as well as on the feast of his patronage, even though these feasts should occur on some day other than Sunday. Moreover, we desire that in the oration A Cunctis, whenever it is to be recited, the commemoration of St. Joseph shall be added in the following words, “with blessed Joseph,” which words are to be introduced after the invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and before all other patron saints, with the exception of the angels and of St. John the Baptist. Finally, we desire that, while this order is to be observed in the suffrages of the saints whenever they are prescribed by the rubrics, the following commemoration should be added in honor of St. Joseph: 

The Antiphon at Vespers: Behold the faithful and prudent servant whom the Lord has set over his household. V. Glory and riches are in his house. R. And his justice remains for ever. 

The Antiphon at Lauds: Jesus himself, when he began his work, was about thirty years of age, being as was supposed the son of Joseph. V. The mouth of the just man shall meditate wisdom. R. And his tongue shall speak judgment. 

The Oration: O God, who in your ineffable providence was pleased to choose blessed Joseph as the spouse of your most holy mother, grant, we beseech you, that we may be made worthy to have him for our intercessor in heaven whom we venerate as our protector on earth.… [emphases added]

No peculiarly Josephite doctrine was defined by Pius IX.

Papa Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci (Leo XIII)

In 1889, Pope Leo wrote the encyclical Quamquam pluries, on devotion to St. Joseph. He begins by deploring the sorry state of the spiritual life in the world—“we see charity growing cold; the young generation daily growing in depravity of morals and views; the Church of Jesus Christ attacked on every side by open force or by craft”—and urges the faithful to develop Josephite devotion as a remedy for this state.

He repeats the basic outline of Josephite devotionals: that Joseph received great dignity by virtue of his nuptial bond to Mary, that he nourished and guarded the Holy Family, that the Christ Child was subject to his paternal authority, that he was prefigured in the ancient patriarch Joseph of Egypt, that he is a model of virginal integrity, and that he was noble of birth but humble of labor.

He closes the short encyclical with the following devotional prescriptions:

We prescribe that during the whole month of October, at the recitation of the Rosary, for which We have already legislated, a prayer to St. Joseph be added, the formula of which will be sent with this letter, and that this custom should be repeated every year. To those who recite this prayer, We grant for each time an indulgence of seven years and seven Lents. It is a salutary practice and very praiseworthy, already established in some countries, to consecrate the month of March to the honour of the holy Patriarch by daily exercises of piety. Where this custom cannot be easily established, it is as least desirable, that before the feast-day, in the principal church of each parish, a triduo of prayer be celebrated. In those lands where the 19th of March – the Feast of St. Joseph – is not a Festival of Obligation, We exhort the faithful to sanctify it as far as possible by private pious practices, in honour of their heavenly patron, as though it were a day of Obligation. [emphases added]

No peculiarly Josephite doctrine was defined by Leo XIII. However, he does give credence to the belief in Joseph’s perpetual virginity.

Papa Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli (John XXIII)

During the preparations for the second Vatican Council, on March 19, 1961 Pope John issued a letter naming St. Joseph the patron saint of the upcoming council. In this letter (Le Voci), John discusses at some length the growth of Josephite devotion over the previous century, writing of the popes already discussed, as well as Pius X (“He also added to the treasure of indulgences attached to reciting the litanies that are so dear to Us and so comforting to say”), Benedict XV (“It is to him that we owe the introduction of two new prefaces into the Canon of the Mass; the preface of St. Joseph and the one for Masses for the Dead”), Pius XI (who “took the opportunity to exalt the many glories that shone forth from the spiritual image of the Guardian of Jesus”), and Pius XII (“in 1955... he announced that the annual feast of St. Joseph the Worker had been instituted”).

Pope John closes the letter with a prayer:

O St. Joseph! Here, here is where you belong as Protector Universalis Ecclesiae! Our intention was to use the words and the documents of Our immediate predecessors over the last century — from Pius IX to Pius XII — to offer you a garland of honor, which would crystallize the expressions of affection and veneration that are now rising everywhere — from Catholic nations and in mission regions. 

Always be our protector. May thy inner spirit of peace, of silence, of good work, and of prayer for the cause of Holy Church always be an inspiration to us and bring us joy in union with thy blessed spouse, our most sweet and gentle and Immaculate Mother, and in the strong yet tender love of Jesus, the glorious and immortal King of all ages and peoples. Amen.

John XXIII was a Josephite pope through and through. He considered taking the name Joseph upon being elevated to the papacy, but demurred because it was a name without papal precedence, and perhaps also because it was one of his given names. Every year on the first of May, Pope John would address the Christian Associations of Italian Workers, speaking about St. Joseph and composing prayers to him. In July 1960 he elevated the Feast of the Holy Family to a second-class rank. His updated 1962 Missal included the addition of St. Joseph into the canon of the Mass.

In a homily on the Ascension given on May 26, 1960, John gave permission to those who wished to believe in a bodily assumption for Sts. Joseph and John the Baptist:

We name two of the most intimate persons in Christ’s life: John the Baptist – the Precursor, and Joseph of Nazareth – his putative father and custodian. It corresponds to them – we may piously believe – the honor and the privilege of Jesus allowing them to admirably accompany him on the path to Heaven (on the day of his Ascension) and to sing the first notes of the never ending hymn, “Te Deum.” [emphasis added]

No peculiarly Josephite doctrine was defined by John XXIII. However, he does offer his support for those who believe in Joseph’s assumption.

Papa Karol Józef Wojtyla (John Paul II)

Never content with brevity when lengthiness was an option, John Paul’s apostolic exhortation Redemptoris Custos (“Guardian of the Redeemer”) reads like a short book. Written in collaboration with Tarcisio Giuseppe Stramare of the Oblates of St. Joseph, there is not much in here that one won’t find in similar devotional works. Probably the most interesting part is where they quote Paul VI’s 1970 discourse to the “Equipes Notre-Dame” Movement:

In this great undertaking which is the renewal of all things in Christ, marriage—it too purified and renewed—becomes a new reality, a sacrament of the New Covenant. We see that at the beginning of the New Testament, as at the beginning of the Old, there is a married couple. But whereas Adam and Eve were the source of evil which was unleashed on the world, Joseph and Mary are the summit from which holiness spreads all over the earth. The Savior began the work of salvation by this virginal and holy union, wherein is manifested his all-powerful will to purify and sanctify the family—that sanctuary of love and cradle of life. (RC 7, emphasis added)

What a bizarre overturning of the ancient, patristic recognition of Jesus and Mary as the new counterparts to the first Adam and Eve! To replace Christ himself with St. Joseph as the New Adam surely drives home the point that excessive Josephite devotion requires a total amnesia of traditional Catholic belief.

No peculiarly Josephite doctrine was defined by John Paul II (nor by Paul VI, for that matter).

Papa Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Francis)

(source)

In his 2013 decree Paternas vices, Franciscus inserted the name of St. Joseph into Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV of the Novus Ordo Missae, because “the faithful in the Catholic Church have shown continuous devotion to Saint Joseph and have solemnly and constantly honored his memory as the most chaste spouse of the Mother of God and as the heavenly Patron of the universal Church.”

In this year’s encyclical Laudato Si, he invoked St. Joseph as a custodian of the natural environment. This had a precursor in the pope’s inaugural humility of March 19, 2013: “In [Joseph], dear friends, we learn how to respond to God’s call, readily and willingly...! Let us protect Christ in our lives, so that we can protect others, so that we can protect creation!”

No peculiarly Josephite doctrine has yet been defined by Francis.

In Closing

Those who wish to invoke papal authority in favor of Josephite devotion must acknowledge that no papal definitions of Josephite doctrine have ever been promulgated, even though some popes appear to have hoped that belief in his place as the second-greatest of all saints would eventually become universally acknowledged. Pius XI thought that the centuries of silence on St. Joseph “was bound to be succeeded by a long, loud cry of acclaim and glory through the ages.”

Perhaps time will tell, but thus far it must be admitted that the Catholic faithful have not yet taken to Josephite devotion except in small pockets. Every time a pope asserts the wonders of St. Joseph, even proclaiming him Patron of the Universal Church, the laity seem to take brief or little notice. His feasts, octaves, and devotionals seem to appear and disappear regularly like the waves of the sea. He retains some popularity among Catholic families as a member of the Holy Family, but most laymen are shocked to hear that anyone could believe in his sinlessness or bodily assumption. If the sensus fidelium speaks with any authority, it thus far finds only a moderate and humble place for the old carpenter from Nazareth.

St. Joseph, wondering how he’s going to afford this wedding, pray for us!

Rights & Privileges

A moment of lucid self-criticism has occurred in the comments here about the relationship between the Pope and the other patriarchs and bishops throughout the Church. There is a dispute as to whether or not the reference to the Council of Florence about the rights and privileges of the Eastern Churches applies to Pastor Aeternus, the document on the papacy. If it is not part of the document I do not see how it is anything less than an interpretive note that clarifies the teaching's place in light of Florence and the historical relationship between the Pope and other bishops as well as between the Pope and the various Eastern patriarchs.

What most reflective Roman Catholics and all Eastern Catholics find troublesome in Pastor Aeternus is not the infallibility portion, but the "universal ordinary jurisdiction" point. "Ordinary" does not mean normal, it means ordinary in the sense that the bishop of a diocese is its ordinary rather than auxiliary. Cardinal Hergonrother's clarifying document Pasce agnos states:

“The Pope is circumscribed by the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges. He is also circumscribed by the respect due to the General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy itself: ‘to feed’."

The "customs" and "rights of bishops" have never, to my knowledge, met a Conciliar definition. The bishopric of Constantinople hopped ahead of Antioch and Alexandria at a council in the line of patriarchs. The pentarchy of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem was proclaimed at two general councils. Sacramental orders were defined at Trent. Yet no binding teachings—again, to my knowledge—exists in depth about the rights of bishops. Patriarchs are even more difficult because, regardless of their historic value and fatherhood over theological and liturgical traditions, they are human inventions and not divine institutions like the episcopacy and the Petrine succession. The function of prudence is thus difficult to explain. 

One must remember that, irrespective of the Ultramontanist fervor of the 19th century, papal "ordinary jurisdiction" can never be normal. Indeed, it is the historical exception, from the earliest days onward. Some interventions were not welcomed, such as the deposition of the imposter Photios from the archbishopric of Constantinople and Clement's seemingly uninitiated letter to the Church a Corinth. Others, like the various judgments over the validity of Baptisms, the admission of controversial figures to Communion, and legal matters, were invited by others, suggesting that the initiating bishops and patriarchs thought the Bishop of Rome both had sufficient power to make episcopal adjudications outside his patriarchate and that such an occurrence was not the norm. 

The balance between Rome and the rest fell away for a variety of reasons: the Chalcedonian schism, the permanent alienation of the Greek patriarchate and its re-invention after 1453, the [positive] outcome of the Investiture Controversy, the Reformation, and the loss of the Papal states. As the various non-Latin Churches, with few exceptions, separated from the larger Church, less leverage existed to check Rome's behavior and keep the diversity of traditions at the forefront of her mind. Justinian calls to mind an formerly-exempt bishopric in Spain, exempt in that it was once free of an archbishopric above it until Pius IX gave into regal requests. Local elections of bishops were once approved by the pope and almost always revolved around local candidates. In the modern day, bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth is abnormal in that he is from Forth Worth.

Neglecting that a balance did once exist and forgetting that human constructs exist in the Church amid Divine institutions (the Papacy and the Vatican are only the most obvious of this interplay) lets one slip into thinking "It's either 19th century Ultramontanism or nothing." This is folly. Prudence. Prudence wins out. Unfortunately, prudence is not a doctrine, nor can it ever be. I would favor a strong, exactingly worded understanding about the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and the non-Latin patriarchs. Would this be a teaching though? I doubt it. Like the pentarchy of yesteryear, it would establish human interactions with Divine things, namely bishops.

In the mean time, read Fortescue's The Early Papacy. It is valuable, not only a historical reference book, but also as an insight as to how the ancient Church understood Rome's role and how popes should behave relative to the universal Church. Lastly, take cues from the ancient church, but do not idolize a golden age. The good Dr. Fortescue said it best himself:

"Go and teach all nations, until Photius is intruded at Constantinople; and I am with you all days, even to the year 451."

The Papacy

Readers will by now have noticed that the Rad Trad is not one partial to Ultramontanism, that odd Jesuitical view of the Pope as the active will of God on earth. He has written on Ultramontanism here and given a favorable review to anti-Utramontanist Dr. Adrian Fortescue's history of the papacy in the pre-Chalcedonian Church here. Indeed this blog has argued in favor of a more local approach to disciplinary and liturgical matters in principle (fully aware that such a move would not be successful in practice given the current state of affairs). Still, while a de-centralized approach would be beneficial, we ought not forget that the Pope, unlike Patriarchs and Archbishops, has a Divine commission to a very important ministry in the Church. I would advise all to read this sober little musing by Fr. John Hunwicke. It is very much in line with Dr. Fortescue's four-fold concept of the Petrine office rather than the hyper-Papalist whims so fashionable in the last two centuries.

Book Review: "The Early Papacy" by Adrian Fortescue

I have not had occasion to write a book review in a while, but I recently read a [very] short work by Fr. Adrian Fortescue worthy of some attention called The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451.

First a few words about the author. Fr. Adrian Fortescue was a very capable linguist and patristic scholar, and something of a frustrate eccentric. He was one of the few clerics in Church history to have shot another man dead and not have been worse off for it. During his travels to Asia Minor and the Middle East, Dr. Fortescue studied the ancient churches of those countries, ecclesial bodies which had long fallen out of the Western mind. Indeed, the re-introduction of the Greek Fathers owes much to Fortescue's introduction to them and his trilogy on Eastern Christendom. Fortescue is most renowned among Catholics nowadays as the author of Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, which has gone through so many editions that only the original chides against fiddleback chasubles is recognizable.

Fr. Fortescue at his parish of St. Hugh's in Letchworth
source: Wikipedia

Above all, Dr. Fortescue was a Roman Catholic priest in early twentieth century England, an England slowly re-building its Catholic community, dealing with the Oxford Movement in the Anglican Church, and the spirit of Vatican I. It was in this setting that Fortescue was challenged to demonstrate the existence of a Papacy before the year 451, the year of the Council of Chalcedon. Many "high" Anglicans became enamored with the Branch Theory derived by Palmer and popularized by the Tractarian Movement. One assertion latent, although not always explicit, in this theory is that the "Papacy" as it exists now is a corruption or a series of politically-driven accretions to the ancient and venerable Bishopric of Rome. Fortescue, obedient to the teaching of Pastor Aeternus, believed the Catholic claim of a continual office through the ages with no apparent reservation, but still thought an inquiry and demonstration of the ancient Papacy worthwhile. He wrote a series of long articles addressing this matter and published them in the Tablet (for my American readers, think an English version of the National Catholic Reporter or Register).

Dr. Alcuin Reid's introduction manages to de-contextualize the presumed context of this collection of articles. One might assume Fortescue intended to unleash a rhetorical flurry of polemical assertions in line with the language and spirit of the First Vatican Council. The post-Vatican I Church was the era of The Early Papacy but certainly not the context. Dr. Fortescue was no ultramontanist. No one with absolutely blind obedience to Rome could write such racy lines as:

"We have stuck out for our position all our lives—unity, authority, St. Peter the rock and so on. I have too, and I believe it; I am always preaching that sort of thing, and yet is it not now getting to a reductio ad absurdam? Centralization grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian lunatic?

".... Give us back the Xth century Johns and Stephens, or a Borgia! They were less disastrous than this deplorable individual."

[St.?] Photius, archbishop of Constantinople
source: wikipedia.org

These comments he wrote concerning Papa Sarto, but he could be similarly critical of, if less acerbic toward, Leo XIII. Point is, if you think Fortescue was a blind Roman puppy, think again. He defended the Papacy because, as a patristic scholar, he believed in it—even when the Bishop of Rome frustrated the English vicar.

Fortescue begins the book by questioning the cutoff date of 451, which he rightly calls arbitrary. One may argue compellingly that while schisms between dioceses existed prior to the Council of Chalcedon, 451 was the first time an entire segment of Christendom (the far eastern churches, in this case) broke communion with the general body. This is not true, as the Assyrian churches split off after the Council of Ephesus decades earlier. The priest muses over the date in a way which exposes his quick whit and humor:

"Go and teach all nations, until Photius is intruded at Constantinople; and I am with you all days, even to the year 451."

Herein we see the faithful assumption of Fortescue: that the Church of ancient times is continuous with the Church of the Middle Ages, which is continuous with the Church today. One Church runs through these eras of history and our Lord's promise to the Apostles held in 451 and still holds today. With this Catholic premise established, Fortescue lays down what he views as the Catholic Church's four essential claims about the office of the Bishop of Rome:

1. He is the chief primate throughout all Christendom
2. He has episcopal jurisdiction without limit, in contrast to the diocesan jurisdiction of a bishop
3. Communion with this man marks you as a member of the Church of Christ, and lack of communion puts you outside the Church of Christ
4. He speaks without error on matter of religious belief

Fortescue considers each of these points in an individual chapter, beginning with a short suggestion of what we should see in the patristic corpus concerning that topic. The author warns us not to read too much into arguments from silence, as the Holy Trinity Itself was not defined in any way until 325, but silence concerning the term "Trinity" before Nicaea does not make the earliest Christians followers of Arius.

The exposition on each of these points uses a fair illustration of the relationship between the early Church and the Bishop of Rome, the chief-most of Christian bishops and the successor of St. Peter. He draws heavily on Ss. Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, the early Popes themselves, legal decisions from the Roman emperor, and even people from the far eastern churches of Syria and Armenia.

The first point, of Papacy primacy throughout the Church, is so uncontroversial it is not worth my recounting. The second, of the Pope's universal jurisdiction, comes with an important caveat from Dr. Fortescue: the Papacy is not a gradation of Holy Orders above that of bishop; the Pope is a bishop like any other, but his jurisdiction does not end at the walls of the diocese of Rome. This statement subtly tempers the assumptions of any ultramontanist reader.

The chapter on the third point, communion with the Roman bishop, is most elucidating. Use of the term "communion" in the Eastern understanding was less common in Fortescue's age than it is in the post-Vatican II era, so his use of it is significant. As a matter of common sense, our author reasons that one must be in communion with the Pope to be Catholic simply because the Pope is a Catholic. A society which is fragmented, in which people belong to different groups, really no longer exists. The communion of the Church of Christ does still exist and its visible mark is union with the Pope. Fortescue details St. Cyprian's views on schisms in his own time, particularly that of Fr. Novatian, from the Church, specifically from the communion centered in Rome. Similar accounts of St. Ambrose's battle against the Donatists follow.

St. Clement, last Pope of the first century

Most compelling in that chapter is Fortescue's evidence from Eusebius, St. Jerome, and from the Popes themselves: the Bishops of Rome decided who to admit to their communion and no one else. These were men accustomed to obedience.

The final chapter, concerning Papal Infallibility, is also a must-read for many Catholics and non-Catholics who think this charism means that the Pope can bind people to believe whatever he wishes. Fortescue gives us a firm belief among the Christians of antiquity that the Church does not err. The Pope, by virtue of his universal jurisdiction, is encompassed in that belief and the promise of Christ's to guide the Church in "all truth." Infallibility does not, nor should it be construed to, mean that the Pope is intrinsically better than all other bishops and acts as a theological dictator. Indeed, the author observes, if there were no other bishops the Papacy would be quite meaningless.

There are two weaknesses in this very strong little volume.

The first is that Fortescue does not differentiate the various kinds of relationships between the Pope and other bishops. The learned priest amply shows pro-active Papal command of other churches (interventions in Corinth by St. Clement in the first century come to mind, as does St. Julius's dealings with St. Athanasius), but would have done well to say something about how patriarchs and diocesan bishops outside the Roman patriarchate might have viewed the Papacy, a view and a relationship almost certainly different from that of bishops within the Roman patriarchate.

The second is lack of consideration of the Orthodox perspective, which currently holds the Pope to be the first among equals. This is a more historically grounded perspective than the Anglican branch theory and one which will be discussed in ecumenical dialogue for many years to come. Perhaps the next time Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox dialogue, they could react to a book such as this—not for its polemical value, but because it recounts clear examples of the role of the Papacy in ancient times. I suspect Fortescue omitted the Orthodox perspective because he was primarily reacting to an Anglican challenge and living in an Anglican country. He would certainly have been aware of the Orthodox view, though.

On the whole, an informative book which makes a compelling, lucid case for the Catholic Church's claims about the Bishop of Rome in the period before the Council of Chalcedon without being too caught up in the excesses of the post-Vatican I period.

Pope's Last Sermon

Pope receives ashes at St Peter's Basilica

Venerable Brothers,
Dear Brothers and Sisters!

Today, Ash Wednesday, we begin a new Lenten journey, a journey that extends over forty days and leads us towards the joy of Easter, to victory of Life over death. Following the ancient Roman tradition of Lenten stations, we are gathered for the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The tradition says that the first statio took place in the Basilica of Saint Sabina on the Aventine Hill. Circumstances suggested we gather in St. Peter's Basilica. Tonight there are many of us gathered around the tomb of the Apostle Peter, to also ask him to pray for the path of the Church going forward at this particular moment in time, to renew our faith in the Supreme Pastor, Christ the Lord. For me it is also a good opportunity to thank everyone, especially the faithful of the Diocese of Rome, as I prepare to conclude the Petrine ministry, and I ask you for a special remembrance in your prayer.

The readings that have just been proclaimed offer us ideas which, by the grace of God, we are called to transform into a concrete attitude and behaviour during Lent. First of all the Church proposes the powerful appeal which the prophet Joel addresses to the people of Israel, "Thus says the Lord, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning" (2.12). Please note the phrase "with all your heart," which means from the very core of our thoughts and feelings, from the roots of our decisions, choices and actions, with a gesture of total and radical freedom. But is this return to God possible? Yes, because there is a force that does not reside in our hearts, but that emanates from the heart of God and the power of His mercy. The prophet says: "return to the Lord, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and relenting in punishment" (v. 13). It is possible to return to the Lord, it is a 'grace', because it is the work of God and the fruit of faith that we entrust to His mercy. But this return to God becomes a reality in our lives only when the grace of God penetrates and moves our innermost core, gifting us the power that "rends the heart". Once again the prophet proclaims these words from God: "Rend your hearts and not your garments" (v. 13). Today, in fact, many are ready to "rend their garments" over scandals and injustices – which are of course caused by others - but few seem willing to act according to their own "heart", their own conscience and their own intentions, by allowing the Lord transform, renew and convert them.

This "return to me with all your heart," then, is a reminder that not only involves the individual but the entire community. Again we heard in the first reading: "Blow the horn in Zion! Proclaim a fast, call an assembly! Gather the people, sanctify the congregation; Assemble the elderly; gather the children, even infants nursing at the breast; Let the bridegroom leave his room, and the bride her bridal tent (vv.15-16). The community dimension is an essential element in faith and Christian life. Christ came "to gather the children of God who are scattered into one" (Jn 11:52). The "we" of the Church is the community in which Jesus brings us together (cf. Jn 12:32), faith is necessarily ecclesial. And it is important to remember and to live this during Lent: each person must be aware that the penitential journey cannot be faced alone, but together with many brothers and sisters in the Church.

Finally, the prophet focuses on the prayers of priests, who, with tears in their eyes, turn to God, saying: " Between the porch and the altar let the priests weep, let the ministers of the LORD weep and say: “Spare your people, Lord! Do not let your heritage become a disgrace, a byword among the nations! Why should they say among the peoples, ‘Where is their God?’"(V.17). This prayer leads us to reflect on the importance of witnessing to faith and Christian life, for each of us and our community, so that we can reveal the face of the Church and how this face is, at times, disfigured. I am thinking in particular of the sins against the unity of the Church, of the divisions in the body of the Church. Living Lent in a more intense and evident ecclesial communion, overcoming individualism and rivalry is a humble and precious sign for those who have distanced themselves from the faith or who are indifferent.

"Well, now is the favourable time, this is the day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:2). The words of the Apostle Paul to the Christians of Corinth resonate for us with an urgency that does not permit absences or inertia. The term "now" is repeated and can not be missed, it is offered to us as a unique opportunity. And the Apostle's gaze focuses on sharing with which Christ chose to characterize his life, taking on everything human to the point of taking on all of man’s sins. The words of St. Paul are very strong: "God made him sin for our sake." Jesus, the innocent, the Holy One, "He who knew no sin" (2 Cor 5:21), bears the burden of sin sharing the outcome of death, and death of the Cross with humanity. The reconciliation we are offered came at a very high price, that of the Cross raised on Golgotha, on which the Son of God made man was hung. In this, in God’s immersion in human suffering and the abyss of evil, is the root of our justification. The "return to God with all your heart" in our Lenten journey passes through the Cross, in following Christ on the road to Calvary, to the total gift of self. It is a journey on which each and every day we learn to leave behind our selfishness and our being closed in on ourselves, to make room for God who opens and transforms our hearts. And as St. Paul reminds us, the proclamation of the Cross resonates within us thanks to the preaching of the Word, of which the Apostle himself is an ambassador. It is a call to us so that this Lenten journey be characterized by a more careful and assiduous listening to the Word of God, the light that illuminates our steps.

In the Gospel passage according of Matthew, to whom belongs to the so-called Sermon on the Mount, Jesus refers to three fundamental practices required by the Mosaic Law: almsgiving, prayer and fasting. These are also traditional indications on the Lenten journey to respond to the invitation to «return to God with all your heart." But he points out that both the quality and the truth of our relationship with God is what qualifies the authenticity of every religious act. For this reason he denounces religious hypocrisy, a behaviour that seeks applause and approval. The true disciple does not serve himself or the "public", but his Lord, in simplicity and generosity: "And your Father who sees everything in secret will reward you" (Mt 6,4.6.18). Our fitness will always be more effective the less we seek our own glory and the more we are aware that the reward of the righteous is God Himself, to be united to Him, here, on a journey of faith, and at the end of life, in the peace light of coming face to face with Him forever (cf. 1 Cor 13:12).

Dear brothers and sisters, we begin our Lenten journey with trust and joy. May the invitation to conversion , to "return to God with all our heart", resonate strongly in us, accepting His grace that makes us new men and women, with the surprising news that is participating in the very life of Jesus. May none of us, therefore, be deaf to this appeal, also addressed in the austere rite, so simple and yet so beautiful, of the imposition of ashes, which we will shortly carry out. May the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church and model of every true disciple of the Lord accompany us in this time. Amen!


source: Vatican Radio