Pope Francis: Two Views

Michael Brendan Dougherty writes:

Liturgical traditionalists (myself included) can only be depressed by this election–it is almost the worst result possible for those of us who think the new liturgy lost the theological profundity and ritual beauty of the Tridentine Mass. Benedict’s liberation of the traditional Latin Mass and revisions to the new vernacular Mass have not been implemented at all in Cardinal Bergoglio’s own diocese. Already some of the small breaks with liturgical tradition at the announcement of his election are being interpreted as a move toward the grand, unruly, and improvisational style of John Paul II; an implicit rebuke of Benedict.

(UPDATE: The claim that Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, did not implement Benedict’s liberation of the old Mass, is now being revisited. See, for instance, this Spanish-language article.)

Dougherty goes on to suggest that the election of Francis is itself an implicit rebuke of Benedict, with Francis having been the runner-up in 2005. A very well placed source (and a pro-market person, for what it’s worth) in Rome, who assisted Benedict in important areas, sent me this column by George Weigel. I take Weigel with a grain of salt, but this story has the ring of truth to it:

Cardinal Bergoglio was used in 2005; he knows precisely who used him and why; and while he is a man of the Gospel who is not looking to settle scores, he is also a man of prudence who knows who his friends, and who his enemies, are. Here’s the story:

In April 2005, the progressive party (which was a real party then) came to Rome after the death of John Paul II thinking it had the wind at its back and clear sailing ahead — only to find that the Ratzinger-for-pope party was well-organized; that Ratzinger had made a very positive impression by the way he had run the General Congregations of cardinals after John Paul II’s death; that he had deep support from throughout the Third World because of the courtesy with which he had treated visiting Third World bishops on their quinquennial visits to Rome over the past 20 years; and that, after his brilliant homily at John Paul’s funeral Mass, he was indisputably the frontrunner for the papacy.

Confronted with this reality, the progressives panicked. Their first blocking move against Ratzinger was to try and run the aged Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini, S.J., emeritus archbishop of Milan, who was already ill with Parkinson’s disease and had retired to the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem. The idea was not to elect Martini pope; it was to stop the Ratzinger surge. Then, when Ratzinger blew past Martini with almost 50 percent of the vote on what was assumed to be the “courtesy” first ballot (where some votes are cast as gestures of friendship, esteem, etc.), and subsequently went over 50 percent the following morning, the panic intensified. Martini was summarily abandoned (or may have told his supporters to forget it). The progressives then tried to advance Cardinal Bergoglio — who was very much part of the pro-Ratzinger coalition; who embodied “dynamic orthodoxy,” just like John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger; who had been persecuted by his more theologically and politically left-leaning Jesuit brethren after his term as Jesuit provincial in Argentina (they exiled him to northern Argentina where he taught high-school chemistry until rescued by John Paul II and eventually made archbishop of Buenos Aires); and who was doubtless appalled by the whole exercise on his putative behalf.

It was a last-ditch blocking move, perhaps constructed around the idea that a Third World candidate like Bergoglio would peel off Ratzinger votes. In any event, it was a complete misreading of the 2005 conclave’s dynamics and a cynical use of Bergoglio, who would almost certainly have been abandoned had the stratagem worked — and it failed miserably.

Thus it may be safely assumed that the coalition that quickly solidified and swiftly elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope in 2013 had little or nothing to do with the eminent cabal that tried to use him in 2005. Pope Francis was elected for who he is, not for taking the silver medal eight years ago.

We shall see.

http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

I find such speculations about a secretive process tedious. Whatever anyone say about what happened in this or that conclave knows that it cannot be corroborated. Moreover, frequently, as in these allegations, one is even trying to inject what happened secretly in the backstage of a secretive process. Therefore, it’s only rumors being made up to further an agenda and giving credit to them by quoting them furthers such agenda.

For St. Pete’s sake, the man has been pope for mere 24h and there already are people purporting to know him and trying to tear him down!

Fallen human nature is way too eager to believe calumny, libel and malicious innuendo before the goodness of others.
Martin

Dr. Woods, please check out what the folks at Rorate Caeli have to say about the article you mentioned in your “update”. An implementation of Summorum Pontificum, therefore, might not have actually happened. What we saw in his first mass as Pope is also not very promising liturgically.

That being said, we have to wait and see what Pope Francis will do (and not do) in the course of his pontificate.
Dirk Reum

Hey Tom, Can you comment a little on why the liturgical decisions of the pope seem so important to you and to other Catholics? I’m a little lost as a protestant. Also, if you could explain the dichotomy between your free market views and why you support such a centralized institution such as the Catholic church, that would be most helpful. Specifically, the topic of liturgical worship would be best.

My own view is that each church should should choose for themselves how best to worship God; not rely on someone (or a small group of someones) to tell them how best it should be done.
Amfortas

I can’t speak for Dr. Woods, but like Sanskrit is to Hindus, Latin is an important language to Catholics because of its significance in the Ancient West.

The Catholic Church may be centralized, but it is not a government that creates laws. It can only create dogma concerning scripture and rituals as pertaining to the church itself.
K

Surely you don’t expect Tom to answer this important questions in only few sentences.

There is no dichotomy between free market and “centralized” Church – they don’t deal with same problem. Church is about Truth. There isn’t truth in market. (Well, not with big T). You can take analogy from science, it’s possible that only few guys are right, but it’s not possible that two people with opposite views are both right. But in free market, different decisions can be “right”, and usually they are better than when only one guy makes decision for everyone. (And Church itself is less centralized than most people think, see doctrine of subsidiarity.)

Liturgy is special issue, I’m not sure how to best respond to that, it’s not only about Latin (history, universality); it’s about unity, tradition, experience, respect, silence, humility, sacrifice…
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000574231766 Janet O’Connor

I have a question to ask: why is it that in the so called “Land Of the Free” people can’t give their honest opinions on a newly elected Pope without being called “Haters”. That’s what I am getting sick of. This man who not much is known is being examined for his views on everything they did the same with Pope Benedict when he was elected in 2005. Even Pope Benedict read and listened to those who he did not agree with.
http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

Well, in short, Catholics love the liturgy, therefore, as Chesterton said, there will be fights over it.
Laura

As a Catholic myself, I am waiting to see what Pope Francis does, when Joe Biden comes over there. If he receives communion by the pope, I will be entirely deflated. Let’s hope & pray that that does not happen. A simple blessing is all that is required. And, I hope, really hope Pope Francis has a talk with the laiety and other priests who may be giving communion to these PRO-ABORTION politicians. Btw, Pelosi is hoping she will be invited herself. Right now, all I know is that Biden is flying to Italy.
It would send an ENORMOUS message to our politicians that the Catholic Church does not approve of their actions. They will be judged by God, just like the rest of us, and I wouldn’t want to be in Biden or Pelosi’s shoes, let alone all the rest who all together are EXTREME WAR-MONGERS.
I hope Pope Francis realizes, or soon realizes that America is on a path of utter self-destruction morally. He tried to change the government’s direction in Argentina, all to no avail.
vox

I can’t speak for Tom either, but I can give some answers and point to good books for this weighty subject. The ancient Tridentine Mass goes back nearly to the beginning of the founding of Catholicism by the God-Man, Jesus Christ. Very early Christians “performed” the holy sacrifice of the mass in obedience to Christ’s words: “Do this for a commemoration of me.” The priests act in persona Christi; in Christ’s person. The mass is the highest prayer the Church can offer God, and it is the offering of ourselves in sacrifice to God. Catholics believe that all Revelation was completed with the Apostles, and therefore, this “deposit of faith” must be handed down through the Church, through all time. This is why the Vatican II break with tradition is illegitimate. The Latin Mass makes present, Christ’s sacrifice, and His Body and Blood through transubstantiation. The liturgy of the mass prays and acts out nearly the whole of all Catholic beliefs. Since faith and truth do not change, the liturgy is to remain largely unchanged. Very few changes were made until the late 1960s.

This is also why legitimate Catholic faith forbids individual churches determining what the faith is, or how to worship God in public prayer. For Catholics, it is not “I think it should be done this way.” For Catholics, it is “Jesus Christ teaches us through the Church.” The hierarchy exists to maintain the deposit of faith, strengthen it, and also spread it to nonbelievers. Catholics believe that the God of Catholicism is the only God, and that He founded only one religion through HiS Son, Jesus Christ. The Church does not teach that churchmen are infallible. But it did teach (as it still should) that the Pope is infallible when speaking on faith and morals. The Pope cannot change the faith. He must teach what the Church has always taught. This is partly why Catholics are so confused, and have been, for at least 50 years. The Church is radically different than it was pre-1950s.

Free market ideas are not incompatible with the Church. In the 16th century, the beginnings of valuable economic theory (what Rothbard called proto-Austrian) were developed by students of Catholic theology and jurisprudence. Mankind has free will, as Catholicism teaches, but this is subjected to the Divine Law of God, which cannot be broken without eternal consequences. Traditional Catholicism, admittedly, has long taught against the separation of Church and state, primarily for the enforcement of Divine Law. They believe that human freedom and morality can only be achieved by following the Decalogue and what Jesus Christ taught. It is believed that freeing yourself from Christ’s teachings is enslaving yourself to the devil. However, the Church does not necessarily promote one form of government over another; as long as Jesus Christ rules over public and private life. This may seem counterintuitive, but Catholicism built and spread human dignity and freedom beyond anything known before it: privacy, dignity of human life, humans made in the likeness of God, caring for the poor and sick for love of God and fellows.
The Church has always taught that material things are good, in their place, and in some moderation; they are not the prime mover or the reason for our existence. Before the massive nanny state, it was the Church which aimed to keep order and harmony within society through spiritual nourishment. It aimed at containment of temporal passions that might upset this harmony, which could only flow from adherence to Divine and lesser so, Church law.

Good reads:

Woods’s Sacred Then and Sacred Now; Michael Davies’s Cranmer’s Godly Order; Marjorie Grice Hutchinson’s School of Salamanca.

If you like, you could finish Davies’s trilogy with Pope John’s Council, and Pope Paul’s New Mass (in this order beginning with Cranmer’s Godly Order). These three books will busy you for a little while.
,