Pope Emeritus Comments - are we focusing on the wrong bit of the speech?

There has been a whirlwind of comment surround Pope Benedict's words at Cardinal Meisner's Requiem as I briefly reported here.

One of the most interesting things from purely an English perspective, was that the Bishop of Lancaster made his own translation of the speech and posted it on his blog (I linked to it here).

One has to wonder why he did this? Some said it was a slightly softer translation, but if his idea was to soften the words of the Pope Emeritus, why bother to draw attention to the speech in such an overt way?

Everyone latched on to the idea that the Pope Emeritus considered the Barque of Peter to be shipping too much water at present. Some prominent commentators, including the infamous @Pope_news anonymous Twitter account, accused Benedict XVI of a bit of back seat driving!

But the account's main attack was directed at the Prefect for the Papal Household:

Suggesting that Archbishop Gänswein is filtering and manipulating the Pope Emeritus to appear at odds with Pope Francis.

Of course, anyone with eyes to see knows that Pope Francis pontificate, recently described by George Neumayer as"temporally-minded", is vastly different in substance and approach. Where it seemed every word from Benedict's lips was a rich spiritual banquet that fed the faithful in abundance and will be pondered and discussed a hundred years from now, Francis is uniquely concerned with appearance (washing the feet of Muslim women & prisoners for example) and tittle-tattle (his determination to "use" Scalfari, for example). I have to agree with Deacon Nick Donnelly:
This same point was made by Damian Thompson in the recent Holysmoke podcast.

Archbishop Gänswein has tried to mitigate the accusations saying "It’s a ‘fantasy’ and ‘stupid’ to use him against Francis" a bit like Antony in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: "For Brutus is an honourable man - so are they all - all honourable men." As pro-Francis @Pope_news points out several times, how could Gänswein not know this is exactly how Pope Benedict's words would be received given the unparalleled turbulence of this papacy?

Much of the context and inference of the Pope Emeritus' words are unpacked by Thomas Peters here.

Regarding the "zeigeist" comment, Peters' notes that Cardinal Meisner was someone who valiantly opposed the spirit of the age, and the Cardinal was known by Pope Benedict to have doubts about the majority interpretation of AL. Peters' thinks this presents the conclusion that Pope Benedict shares Cardinal Meisner’s view regarding the dubia.

In Ratzingerian thought, the “dictatorship of the zeitgeist” is something deeply pernicious: it is the effort to use the pressures of the progressive, secular establishment to force the Church to abandon the truth. When Pope Benedict says zeitgeist, he means something specific: the spirit of the age which attempts to change the Church’s teaching so that it mimics the shape of secular culture and loses its distinctive qualities, which are always traceable back to the biblical teaching of Christ and revelation itself.

Peters remarks:
On the question of AL and its interpretation, it is simply a given fact that the progressive view has far more in common with the zeitgeist of the age than does the historical, perennial teaching. It is unquestionable that a church which allows more publicly divorced-and-remarried people to receive Communion is a church that looks less like the historical Catholic church and more like progressive, lower-c christian churches and … most notably, looks more like the German Catholic church.
Is the Pope Emeritus calling for resistance?


  1. It doesn't matter if PBXVI is now calling for resistance. He abandoned us & left the Throne of Peter empty for the present incumbent to be installed. He must have known who that would be, as he came a close second to him at his election.

    As Cardinal Ratzinger he played a pivotal role in VII, turning the CC into another protestant denomination. He cannot deny his role in trashing our Liturgy of Ages, removing our beautiful altars facing east for simple tables facing the congregation, placing the tabernacles in a corner out of sight (many without a sanctuary light), our confessionals tossed on the rubbish tip along with the stations of the cross & holy water fonts. This to make way for Holy Communion in the hand (a travesty), people talking & laughing in church when waiting for Holy Mass to begin, children unrestrained, congregations standing & sitting at different times during the Holy Sacrifice with very little time given to kneeling in adoration, even after the reception of the Sacred Host. The sign of peace is another abomination as these people then approach the altar & receive the Host in their hand which has touched many other hands giving this gesture, but also their house & car keys & possibly even their pets. What an insult to God! The only crumb of comfort he threw us was Summorum Pontificum, but because he didn't mandate it, it made no difference at all for the vast majority of the world's Catholics. Only an elite few have access to TLM which wasn't necessary to change as the vernacular was already side by side with the Latin in our missals. False ecumenism was their goal & it has backfired. Why don't they just hold up their hands & say 'Sorry' & return to the Tridentine Mass which held everything together for night two thousand years. Since that was taken away from us, there has been nothing but calamity after calamity & we shall not have the Peace of Christ until it is resumed worldwide.

  2. JULY 23, 2017

    Pope Francis uses a false premise to interpret magisterial documents, violates Principle of Non Contradiction and Bishop Schneider and Rorate Caeili ignore it


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The response of youth to the "youth" synod? Largely horror.

Pope Francis has elevated immoral men in order to change the Catholic faith

Archbishop Viganò responds to Cardinal Ouellet