Pope Benedict Resigning

[KnightofChrist]

Taking away the finery from the papacy wouldn't accomplish much because the conception of bishop that knightofchrist expressed, the pope as a glorified sitting monarch, would remain.

I think you have a rather erroneous and perverted view of the Holy Pontiff as a monarch. But you are too hard headed and convinced that you are right. So I would only bother adding the Holy Pontiff is so much more than a monarch, more even than a Pontiff or bishop. He is our Holy Father, and we are his children. Fatherhood, even spiritual fatherhood, is not a responsibility that can be given up without grave cause, nor can the one that holds that great responsibility be made a powerless figurehead.

[Guest]

I love Pope B...I even read some stuff where he says how he thinks most will be saved and only the people who really hated their neighbor their whole life will go to hell and be erased....Most will be saved and be purged in purgatory...If that's not hope I don't know what hope is...Be Holy and walk in Love Gods real...

Edited February 18, 2013 by Guest

[CatholicCid]

No, I think he'll be another figurehead filling an office that has made itself irrelevant because it bears no resemblance to the men it claims to succeed (i.e., St. Peter and Christ). The new Pope will say some nice things, make some nice spiritual observations, wear some beautiful vestments, but so will millions of other people around the world. If the papacy is an extraordinary office, as we are lead to believe, then I expect it to aspire to something extraordinary, and not pattern itself along the lines of diplomats and heads of state. If Gandhi had the courage to live without armed guards, should I expect less of a man who claims to represent Christ for a billion people?

 

As with the flow of time, the shape of an office has changed, or, more appropriately, developed. The Papacy is an extraordinary office and it remains something extraordinary. Just as Peter gave himself up on the cross following after Christ, our current Pontiff is called to give himself up through daily death-to-self following after Christ.

 

At this time in the Church's history, it would seem that the Pontiff is not called to a crown of red martyrdom. 

Edited February 18, 2013 by CatholicCid

[Amppax]

The papacy lost it's temporal power with the Investiture Controversy and the dissolution of the Papal States.  

 

Not to be a giant butt, but I would disagree.  The height of the papacy's claim to temporal power comes under Pope Boniface VIII, in Unam Sanctam, where he claims that no one can be saved lest he bend the knee to the Pope of Rome; plus other claims .  The papacy before the Investiture Controversy, starting in the eleventh century, was hardly a temporal superpower.  Charlemagne and the Carolingian dynasty exercised far more control over Church affairs than the Pope [Charlemagne standardized so much: he made the Vulgate the official Bible, The Roman Liturgy standard, and only allowed Benedictine monasteries; plus his Cathedral schools, etc]; look back before that, and you'll see Constantine calling the first ecumenical council.  During the period following the fall of the Roman empire, until about Charlemagne, the Pope's did exercise a certain amount of temporal authority, but that's because they were the only ones that would [See Pope St. Leo the Great/ Pope St. Gregory the Great]!  The dissolution of the Papal States began during the French Revolution, and I think by the 1860's the Papal States were no more.  If you really want to look for the height of temporal power for the Papacy, look at the Renaissance.  

 

That being said, my little rant has almost nothing to do with the conversation, and adds very little to the discussion.  Carry on! 

[Era Might]

As with the flow of time, the shape of an office has changed, or, more appropriately, developed. The Papacy is an extraordinary office and it remains something extraordinary. Just as Peter gave himself up on the cross following after Christ, our current Pontiff is called to give himself up through daily death-to-self following after Christ.

 

At this time in the Church's history, it would seem that the Pontiff is not called to a crown of red martyrdom. 

 

What's extraordinary about it?

[CatholicCid]

What's extraordinary about it?

Instead of gaining the world, as many political heads desire, the Pontiff takes upon himself the cross by accepting this office. He dies to himself entirely and lives entirely for the Church in a way unique to the papacy today. I think that's quite extraordinary. 

[Era Might]

Instead of gaining the world, as many political heads desire, the Pontiff takes upon himself the cross by accepting this office. He dies to himself entirely and lives entirely for the Church in a way unique to the papacy today. I think that's quite extraordinary. 

 

It's great that the Pope takes up his cross, but anyone can take up their cross in any situation they find themselves in. I don't think that makes the papacy extraordinary. Every priest around the world is supposed to take up his cross.

 

To me, extraordinary is something that is unique, quite different from how most men choose to lead their lives. Christ was extraordinary. The son of man had no place to lay his head. St. Peter was extraordinary. He left everything to follow Christ in a life of itinerant and dangerous discipleship. St. Paul was extraordinary...shipwrecks, imprisonments, floggings, beheading. Gandhi was extraordinary...he lived with and for the poor. I can think of a lot of people who lived extraordinary lives, lives quite different from other men, but the papacy is a very conventional office, a religious and cultural figurehead. If the Pope is hungry, he has food. If he is in danger, he has guards. If he is sick, he has his choice of any hospital in the world. If he needs wheels, he has the Popemobile.

 

The papacy is prestigious, but I certainly wouldn't call it extraordinary. Individual popes may or may not be extraordinary characters, but the papacy itself is just an office that has to be maintained because that's how the office was before, so that's how it is now. If the pope tried to live like St. Peter, a really radical life, an extraordinary life, he would be considered a renegade.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Era Might

[CatholicCid]

It's great that the Pope takes up his cross, but anyone can take up their cross in any situation they find themselves in. I don't think that makes the papacy extraordinary. Every priest around the world is supposed to take up his cross.

 

To me, extraordinary is something that is unique, quite different from how most men choose to lead their lives. Christ was extraordinary. The son of man had no place to lay his head. St. Peter was extraordinary. He left everything to follow Christ in a life of itinerant and dangerous discipleship. St. Paul was extraordinary...shipwrecks, imprisonments, floggings, beheading. Gandhi was extraordinary...he lived with and for the poor. I can think of a lot of people who lived extraordinary lives, lives quite different from other men, but the papacy is a very conventional office, a religious and cultural figurehead. If the Pope is hungry, he has food. If he is in danger, he has guards. If he is sick, he has his choice of any hospital in the world. If he needs wheels, he has the Popemobile.

 

The papacy is prestigious, but I certainly wouldn't call it extraordinary. Individual popes may or may not be extraordinary characters, but the papacy itself is just an office that has to be maintained because that's how the office was before, so that's how it is now. If the pope tried to live like St. Peter, a really radical life, an extraordinary life, he would be considered a renegade.

Yes, every priest, indeed every person, is called to take up their cross. Yet, I still think the cross of the Papacy is a unique cross (just as every cross is unique), and is one appropriate to the successor of St. Peter. Needless to say, I do think it quite extraordinary.

 

The Pope gains certain physical luxuries through the office, but he gives up many freedoms upon taking the office. He leaves everything and follows Christ, just as Peter did. How this is done has developed over time, but the meaning is still the same. And, in return, he is given the responsibility of the spiritual care of the whole world, just as a bishop is to care for all those in his diocese and a priest for his parish. 

 

This will sound strange, but the Pope does not have the "luxury" to live the "radical" and "extraordinary" life that you desire for him to live at this point of time. Christ has instituted a hierarchal Church and the office entrusted to his vicar has taken on this form now and this is the cross Christ is calling him to live. He is to live in a position of power, yet still give himself entirely for the poor. He is to be a prince of the Church, yet also the poor fisherman. As with all things in the Church, he is called to live a seeming contradiction. To the world, his life is radical, is extraordinary; He is a renegade. He is Peter.

 

And, just as the measure we hold the Holy Father too, we are no less free from (Matthew 7:2). Just as he lives extraordinarily, so are we too. To quote the current Holy Father, the man who did not want to be Pope as he is called, from an audience he had with a group of pilgrims: "We were not created for comfort, but for greatness." This statement is a reminder that, just as the Holy Father is called to give up the life he desires to live and live the life of the Papacy, so we too are called to die to ourselves and live entirely for Christ.

Edited February 19, 2013 by CatholicCid

[Era Might]

Yes, every priest, indeed every person, is called to take up their cross. Yet, I still think the cross of the Papacy is a unique cross (just as every cross is unique), and is one appropriate to the successor of St. Peter. Needless to say, I do think it quite extraordinary.

 

The Pope gains certain physical luxuries through the office, but he gives up many freedoms upon taking the office. He leaves everything and follows Christ, just as Peter did. How this is done has developed over time, but the meaning is still the same. And, in return, he is given the responsibility of the spiritual care of the whole world, just as a bishop is to care for all those in his diocese and a priest for his parish. 

 

This will sound strange, but the Pope does not have the "luxury" to live the "radical" and "extraordinary" life that you desire for him to live at this point of time. Christ has instituted a hierarchal Church and the office entrusted to his vicar has taken on this form now and this is the cross Christ is calling him to live. He is to live in a position of power, yet still give himself entirely for the poor. He is to be a prince of the Church, yet also the poor fisherman. As with all things in the Church, he is called to live a seeming contradiction. To the world, his life is radical, is extraordinary; He is a renegade. He is Peter.

 

And, just as the measure we hold the Holy Father too, we are no less free from (Matthew 7:2). Just as he lives extraordinarily, so are we too. To quote the current Holy Father, the man who did not want to be Pope as he is called, from an audience he had with a group of pilgrims: "We were not created for comfort, but for greatness."

 

We both agree the office has "developed"...I just think it has not developed for the better. Everything you mention that is "extraordinary" about the papacy (spiritual fatherhood, self-sacrifice, etc.) can be had without the form the papacy has assumed in its development.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Era Might

[CatholicCid]

<Will refrain as you edit>

Edited February 19, 2013 by CatholicCid

[Era Might]

<Will refrain as you edit>

 

The floor is yours, senator. :)

[CatholicCid]

Thank you, Senator. :)

 

We both agree the office has "developed"...I just think it has not developed for the better. Everything you mention that is "extraordinary" about the papacy (spiritual fatherhood, self-sacrifice, etc.) can be had without the form the papacy has assumed in its development.

Could you describe such a papacy? If we agree on that the Papacy is "extraordinary" in several regards, what makes it simply ordinary? From your previous posts, it seems that you believe the Papacy is "unapostolic" because the Holy Father currently isn't being martyred in St. Peter's Square.

 

Honestly, I think our past several Holy Fathers would have all been willing to accept the martyr's crown, but that doesn't seem to be what the Lord desired for them, at least not physical martyrdom. Just as martyrdom is a powerful witness, living a daily martyrdom is just as powerful. To paraphrase from a missionary's journal, "How do we prepare for martyrdom? By dying every day [death to self]."

Edited February 19, 2013 by CatholicCid

[Era Might]

Thank you, Senator. :)

 

Could you describe such a papacy? If we agree on that the Papacy is "extraordinary" in several regards, what makes it simply ordinary? From your previous posts, it seems that you believe the Papacy is "unapostolic" because the Holy Father currently isn't being martyred in St. Peter's Square.

 

Honestly, I think our past several Holy Fathers would have all been willing to accept the martyr's crown, but that doesn't seem to be what the Lord desired for them, at least not physical martyrdom. Just as martyrdom is a powerful witness, living a daily martyrdom is just as powerful. To paraphrase from a missionary's journal, "How do we prepare for martyrdom? By dying every day [death to self]."

 

The Lord doesn't will it because it hasn't happened? That seems a strange way to explain things...if you lock yourself in a fortress, therefore the Lord doesn't will anything to happen that doesn't happen outside that fortress.

 

I think the witness of St. Peter is very simple. Our Lord said to the Apostles that the greatest among them must be their servant, and he told St. Peter specifically to confirm his brethren in the faith, and to feed his sheep. How did St. Peter do this? Just like the other Apostles did, by bearing witness to the Gospel and strengthening the churches in their faith.

 

The church doesn't need a universal bishop. It doesn't need a universal administrator. It doesn't need a universal babysitter. It doesn't need a pretty figurehead paraded around.

 

If the Pope wants to be bishop of Rome, then be bishop of Rome. The church does not need to be a centralized institution. The power wielded by St. Peter and the other Apostles was not based on a centralized institution, but on a moral and prophetic power. St. Paul's letters are very powerful, but St. Paul's witness was personal. He had the scars and the imprisonments and eventually the martyrdom to claim that moral authority. He wasn't a figurehead living in Rome. Even St. Peter was not a fortress figurehead, he founded the church in Antioch according to tradition, and went to Rome toward the end of his life. These weren't "papal visits" such as we have today, where the pope makes his rounds from country to country as a "head of state" and "spiritual leader." St. Peter was an Apostle, helping to build the local churches.

 

In short, the papacy could be prophetic and truly extraordinary if it ceased to be a symbol passed on from figurehead to figurehead, and instead became more of a personal charism to follow the example of St. Peter (and not merely claim his name).

Edited February 19, 2013 by Era Might

[CatholicCid]

The Lord doesn't will it because it hasn't happened? That seems a strange way to explain things...if you lock yourself in a fortress, therefore the Lord doesn't will anything to happen that doesn't happen outside that fortress.

 

I think the witness of St. Peter is very simple. Our Lord said to the Apostles that the greatest among them must be their servant, and he told St. Peter specifically to confirm his brethren in the faith, and to feed his sheep. How did St. Peter do this? Just like the other Apostles did, by bearing witness to the Gospel and strengthening the churches in their faith.

 

The church doesn't need a universal bishop. It doesn't need a universal administrator. It doesn't need a universal babysitter. It doesn't need a pretty figurehead paraded around.

 

If the Pope wants to be bishop of Rome, then be bishop of Rome. The church does not need to be a centralized institution. The power wielded by St. Peter and the other Apostles was not based on a centralized institution, but on a moral and prophetic power. St. Paul's letters are very powerful, but St. Paul's witness was personal. He had the scars and the imprisonments and eventually the martyrdom to claim that moral authority. He wasn't a figurehead living in Rome. Even St. Peter was not a fortress figurehead, he founded the church in Antioch according to tradition, and went to Rome toward the end of his life. These weren't "papal visits" such as we have today, where the pope makes his rounds from country to country as a "head of state" and "spiritual leader." St. Peter was an Apostle, helping to build the local churches.

 

In short, the papacy could be prophetic and truly extraordinary if it ceased to be a symbol passed on from figurehead to figurehead, and instead became more of a personal charism to follow the example of St. Peter (and not merely claim his name).

As you said, we do disagree then. I still think that, like St. Peter, the Pope is bearing witness to the Gospel and strengthening the churches in their faith even today. They are truly following Peter's example, but also making it their own (some for better, some for worse).

 

The Church may not need a centralized institution, but that is the institution given by Christ:

"The Lord Jesus, after praying to the Father, calling to Himself those whom He desired, appointed twelve to be with Him, and whom He would send to preach the Kingdom of God; and these apostles He formed after the manner of a college or a stable group, over which He placed Peter chosen from among them." (Lumen Gentium 19)

 

And the Pope, as the successor of Peter, is, in a sense, a figurehead, as was Peter: "The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful." (LG 23)

 

And, in a sense, the symbolism of the Papacy is truly the great thing of the office. The Papacy is not founded solely on St. Peter, but on He who Peter himself followed, Jesus Christ. With the passing of the office and the passing of the name, whether it be from Peter to Clement or Benedict to his successor, we are still able to acclaim "You are Peter" (Matthew 16:18) and know that, as seen in this visible office, the Church remains connected to Christ Her founder through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (in-spite of the Pope himself, whether he be a saint or sinner).

 

Individual Pontiffs have personal charisms. Some have been virtuous and holy men and others horrific sinners. But, they are Peter. They are the successors to the Apostle Peter. Even lacking imprisonment, scars, and martyrdom, they retain the moral authority of Peter himself, given by Jesus Christ, through the very office of the Papacy. They retain this moral authority because it does not rest with St. Peter nor with St. Paul nor any other Apostle. It rests solely with Christ, who has chosen to give that authority to His apostles and their successors. 

 

So, has the Papacy, at times, had to much pomp and circumstance? Yes, of course. We are a church of fallen men who, at times, give in to temptations to power. Just as Peter himself had denied Christ, it would seem at times that some of his successors have as well. But, does this prevent the office of the Papacy from living out the apostolic mission of the Gospel? I would argue that it does not. But, instead of seeing Peter lead out to martyrdom in the square, we see Peter dying to himself by giving himself over entirely to be the servant of the servants of God by assuming an office of great responsibility and living entirely for the Church, as we all are called to do.

[KnightofChrist]

The Lord doesn't will it because it hasn't happened? That seems a strange way to explain things...if you lock yourself in a fortress, therefore the Lord doesn't will anything to happen that doesn't happen outside that fortress.

 

I think the witness of St. Peter is very simple. Our Lord said to the Apostles that the greatest among them must be their servant, and he told St. Peter specifically to confirm his brethren in the faith, and to feed his sheep. How did St. Peter do this? Just like the other Apostles did, by bearing witness to the Gospel and strengthening the churches in their faith.

 

The Pope does confirm his brethren in the faith, he does feed his sheep. He can and does now bear witness to the Gospel and strengthens the Church in her faith. Peter can still do the simple things.

 

 

The church doesn't need a universal bishop. It doesn't need a universal administrator. [...] If the Pope wants to be bishop of Rome, then be bishop of Rome. The church does not need to be a centralized institution.

 

Why not?

 

The power wielded by St. Peter and the other Apostles was not based on a centralized institution, but on a moral and prophetic power. 

 

Even if you don't want to admit Peter had Primacy, Christianity while small, was even then a institution, and it was centralized in the Apostles.

 

St. Paul's letters are very powerful, but St. Paul's witness was personal. He had the scars and the imprisonments and eventually the martyrdom to claim that moral authority.

 

Popes have been imprisoned and Popes have also been martyred. 

 

He wasn't a figurehead living in Rome.

 

The Pope today isn't a figurehead. Liberals like to see him that way though... makes it easier not to obey.

 

Even St. Peter was not a fortress figurehead, he founded the church in Antioch according to tradition, and went to Rome toward the end of his life. These weren't "papal visits" such as we have today, where the pope makes his rounds from country to country as a "head of state" and "spiritual leader." St. Peter was an Apostle, helping to build the local churches.

 

The Pope today doesn't help build the churches? Not the physical buildings perhaps, but the laity he does, he still proclaims the Gospel of Christ, and still strengthens the Church in her faith. I don't see how being a head of state or spiritual leader prevents him from building the Church.

 

In short, the papacy could be prophetic and truly extraordinary if it ceased to be a symbol passed on from figurehead to figurehead, and instead became more of a personal charism to follow the example of St. Peter (and not merely claim his name).

 

So it would still be a symbol as a personal charism for anyone to follow? Just so long as it is not a symbol passed down from Pope to Pope? Why did the Apostles think that they were bishops (something you say we don't need) and why did they refill the office of a bishop when it was vacated? 

Edited February 19, 2013 by KnightofChrist