Pope Benedict Resigning

[bmb144]

Um...wow!

 

I have to say that I am more gobsmacked by the replies here than announcement of the Popes resigning.

 

The thing is guys and gals...he's human. When you simply boil it down, under all those robes, crosses etc, you have a living, breathing, human being. To come to a place where he knows its too heavy for him, where his body simply does not have enough in it takes a huge amount of guts. We don't know what happens behind closed doors or within his mind.  We don't know how much his heart aches within him. We don't know how much sleep he loses, how many prayers he cries through.

He simply came to place where he knew within himself, he could not anymore.

 

I deeply respect his choice.  It shows that he had no need to cling to the office. I don't deem it to be him giving up, he is moving aside for another.  He is allowing another who hopefully will have the strength he simply lacks, to move the church forward.

 

His choice is one that shows respect to God, to the church and a healthy respect for himself.  He knows his limit and he has simply reached it.

 

 

 

[Era Might]

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.

 

I understand the modern church's theology of the papacy, I just don't find it very compelling. But that's okay. What the Pope does has no bearing on my life. I do not need to claim him as a hero...there are plenty of heros in the world. I don't define myself in the context of an institution centered in Rome. The local priest or the homeless man on the street is more relevant to my life than the Pope. But I have my thoughts on what the papacy could be, to be truly meaningful, and I find it unfortunate that a potentially beautiful witness is squandered. But Christ said that where two are more are gathered in his name, there he is in the midst of them. I don't wake up in the morning and need to know what the Pope is doing, and I don't have any particular desire to know. He has some nice things to say once in a while...good for him.

[Era Might]

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?

 

I didn't say that. The church needs leaders. I just find its conception of leadership, as it has developed over the last 2,000 years to be useless, bureaucratic,  needlessly institutional, and remarkably unlike the lives lived by the Apostles.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

I didn't say that. The church needs leaders. I just find its conception of leadership, as it has developed over the last 2,000 years to be useless, bureaucratic,  needlessly institutional, and remarkably unlike the lives lived by the Apostles.

 

But you don't do a good job of explaining exactly how the Papacy is useless and needless, you just say it is, nor have you explained clearly how leaders could lead billions of faithful without some type of centralized authority, nor why centralized authority should be thrown out even though the Apostles themselves clearly had centralized authority in the early Church. Would the growth of the Church to billions of faithful outweigh the need of centralized Apostolic  authority? Also you didn't answer my question of why the Church doesn't need a universal bishop.
 

[Era Might]

But you don't do a good job of explaining exactly how the Papacy is useless and needless, you just say it is, nor have you explained clearly how leaders could lead billions of faithful without some type of centralized authority, nor why centralized authority should be thrown out even though the Apostles themselves clearly had centralized authority in the early Church. Would the growth of the Church to billions of faithful outweigh the need of centralized Apostolic  authority? Also you didn't answer my question of why the Church doesn't need a universal bishop.
 

 

Leaders don't have to lead billions of people. That's the whole point of witness, to be Christ where you are. I would go a step further and say that leaders CAN"T lead billions of people, and trying to do so creates a situation where everyone becomes fixated on a distant, impersonal authority. But that's how the church has developed, a clerical institution where everything is done in terms of institutionalized structures and offices. I find even the local bishop is largely useless...what have I to do with my local bishop, except to hear a letter read from him, or sit through a "bishop's drive" at mass? I am not against leadership or authority...I want to make these stronger, not weaker. I wish I could look to bishops as fathers, as men who have a personal stake in my life in Christ (and not merely a juridical stake). But I can't, and that's fine...my life goes on without them, and I look for Christ where I am planted.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

Where in the Bible does it say Bishops must have the personal relationship (as you're describing) with their flock?

[Era Might]

Where in the Bible does it say Bishops must have the personal relationship (as you're describing) with their flock?

 

What other kind of Christian relationship is there?

 

St. Paul has to make it appoint to remind the Corinthians of his personal relationship with them...in fact, he tells them that they will have to confront him to his face when he gets there, and he distinguishes between "guides" and "fathers" in Christ.

 

 

5

For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me. Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church. Some are arrogant, as though I were not coming to you.  But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power. For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?

 

--1Corinthians 4:15-21

Edited February 19, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

What other kind of Christian relationship is there?

Christian relationships, Christian love, and Christian unity all transcend the physical. I never need physically interact with all the billions of my Catholic brethren for them to truly be my brothers and sisters in Christ. In like manner every Catholic does not need to personally know and meet the Pope, the Pope would still be their Holy Father, spiritual father and head of Holy Mother Church on earth.

[KnightofChrist]

I see where St. Paul states "I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." But not were he became and stayed their father by personally meeting with them. His meeting with them doesn't imply that without such meetings he would not be their father.

[Era Might]

I see where St. Paul states "I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." But not were he became and stayed their father by personally meeting with them. His meeting with them doesn't imply that without such meetings he would not be their father.

 

No, it's possible to have an estranged father. I just don't pay much attention to estranged family members.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

No, it's possible to have an estranged father. I just don't pay much attention to estranged family members.

Only if we adopt a worldy view of fatherhood, and cut out the spirit add a pinch of bitterness, can we come to that limited view point about the Holy Father. It could just as easily be applied to God the Father, whens the last time you've personally and physically met Him?

[Era Might]

Only if we adopt a worldy view of fatherhood, and cut out the spirit add a pinch of bitterness, can we come to that limited view point about the Holy Father. It could just as easily be applied to God the Father, whens the last time you've personally and physically met Him?

 

This morning. "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them."

 

I agree that the Pope is useless from a worldly point of view. I just wish they would recognize that rather than trying to be another useless figurehead. Most of what the Pope does, in his worldly role, is irrelevant. I would rather he cut that part out altogether, and let the true meaning of his role shine.

 

Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms. And Peter directed his gaze at him, with John, and said, "Look at us." And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them.  But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk."  And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong.

 

--Acts 3:3-7

Edited February 19, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

This morning. "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them."

Those are the words of God the Son, I meet Christ every time I go to Mass too. But I asked about God the Father, I doubt you've actually physically been in His presence.

[Era Might]

Those are the words of God the Son, I meet Christ every time I go to Mass too. But I asked about God the Father, I doubt you've actually physically been in His presence.

 

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?  Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.

 

--John 14:9-11

[KnightofChrist]

You still haven't actually met God the Father personally and physically. We both know God the Father and God the Son are one, but the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son. Unless this is another error of Eraism, and you don't believe in the Trinity anymore.