Sometimes people just do things differently. Doing one thing when your predecessor did another doesn’t necessarily mean you’re thinking about him at all, much less indirectly criticizing him. Yet the “Francis is different than Benedict, therefore Francis is criticizing Benedict” line is one you find in many articles on the new pope.
Like this one, in an article on Slate by a disgruntled traditionalist: “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.” Ignoring that backside-covering “are being interpreted” and “implicit,” why in the world should a matter of a person’s style be considered a rebuke at all?
Maybe, as seems true from what we’ve learned about him in the last two days, the new pope is more informal, or less interested in formality, than the previous one. The grand, unruly, and improvisational style may be his by nature, something he just does without thinking about it. That may be a good thing or a bad thing or a mixture, but it doesn’t mean he’s rebuking Benedict, even implicitly.
Not everything is political. Sometimes people are just people.
March 15th, 2013 | 1:28 pm
Except that doesn’t fit the narrative. Everything Francis does differently to Benedict is a rebuke, because Benedict was the evil Nazi pedophile-enabling pompous poor-hating rigid oppressive patriarchal bogeyman and we’re glad to be rid of him.
If they didn’t listen to Benedict (because they fundamentally didn’t understand him), why do we expect them to listen to Francis (because they’re already demonstrating that they fundamentally don’t understand him)?
March 15th, 2013 | 3:16 pm
Like other traditionalists, the writer of the Slate article decries the so-called saint factor of Bl. Pope John Paul II. I’ve never understood why canonizing people as saints is a bad thing. After all, is that why we’re here? Didn’t Christ create the Church to create saints, that is, to be a “saint factory”?
From the Baltimore Catechism:
“6. Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven. “
March 15th, 2013 | 3:55 pm
Pardon; I seem to have glossed over the adjective “traditionalist” in the top post and presumed Slate’s standard left bias. Sloppy of me.
My concluding criticism still stands, though; on the evidence of his words, the author of the Slate article fundamentally did not understand Benedict, and fundamentally does not understand Francis.
March 15th, 2013 | 4:59 pm
The Slate author writes, “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.”
This needs clarification, because I have read elsewhere that then-Bishop Bergoglio executed Summorum Pontificum within 48 hours (see WDTPRS). And, was not the recent revision to the vernacular missal for English speaking countries, not Spanish countries such as Argentina?
If my understanding is correct, then all I need to know is how to write “wet blanket” in Latin and pass it on to the cranky writer.
March 15th, 2013 | 6:44 pm
This is hopeless.
The article posted in the comments from Clarin proves my point, if anyone bothered to look into it beyond Fr. Z’s headline.
The article explains that a “Traditional Mass” was set up, but if you look deeper you see that the people attending knew a lot about the traditional Mass and said some parts were not Traditional. That’s because at this Mass the readings were done according to the New Lectionary by lay people, and the Mass was celebrated “versus populum”. All against the rubrics. So much for “doing the red, saying the black.” This particular Mass was authorized for once a month. In a crypt.
Naturally, because it wasn’t really a Traditional Mass, those Catholics inclined to it stop attending and the thing was cancelled. The other Google Maps that have been thrown in my face show Masses that are in Argentina but outside the diocese of Buenos Aires.
I didn’t expect most Catholics to receive my criticism happily. We want to think the best of our new Pope. But the responses have been sloppy, incoherent, and silly. Mostly people just MAKE UP reasons to like him based on their shallow impressions of South Americans or their feelings about St. Francis.
Pope Francis, as bishop of his diocese undermined the implementation of SP. And he has publicly criticized the Anglican Ordinariate, two initiatives that were dearly praised on First Things and by my critics. These are the facts. I can’t help you if you’d rather be mad at me for mentioning them.
Maybe you should ask why Pope Francis “didn’t listen to Pope Benedict.”
March 15th, 2013 | 7:07 pm
There’s some sloppiness among traditionalist defenders of the pope. Summorum Pontificum didn’t need “executing” by a bishop. It would be more accurate to say that he executed Ecclesia Dei 19 years later.
It may be a hard pill to swallow for traditionalists but it seems likely to me that the cardinal, like most Argentinians, aren’t that interested in the extraordinary form.
March 15th, 2013 | 8:00 pm
The first half of my inquiry is partially answered but not the second. What of the comment regarding the revision of the vernacular missal?
Hopeless? I think not. The divine is never hopeless.
March 15th, 2013 | 8:49 pm
When did Card. Bergoglio “publicly criticize[] the Anglican Ordinariate”?
March 15th, 2013 | 8:56 pm
// Mostly people just MAKE UP reasons to like him based on their shallow impressions of South Americans or their feelings about St. Francis. //
Oh, really. This is, um, sloppy and silly, though it is coherent.
There is, by the way, no evidence that Francis has “publicly” criticized the Anglican Ordinariate. We have just one quote from an interested party (an Anglican bishop) to say that he did criticize it and that man was reporting a private conversation. I have my doubts he (Francis) said it. But in any case, this kind of mistake doesn’t make one confident in the other claims or in the general claim that “These are the facts.”
Also, no one, as far as I can tell, is made at Mr. Daugherty.
March 15th, 2013 | 11:54 pm
I’ve seen some allegations among “rad-trads” that the Holy Father didn’t “implement” Summorum Pontificum. Has anyone actually read it?
Summorum Pontificum authorizes the use of the Extraordinary Form without the permission of the diocesan bishop. That’s what S.P. does.
So how exactly is a bishop supposed to implement something which effectively negates his authority (in a particular matter)?
Rad-trads (I’m looking at you, Rorate Caeli) … did Abp. Bergoglio violate S.P. in any way? Or did he merely continue to support the O.F., which, in a sober analysis of canon law, it was his duty to do?
To suggest that Bergoglio as archbishop actively violated a motu proprio is a pretty serious allegation. I would like to think that anyone who would make such allegations publicly would have a large array of material evidence to support such a claim.
Instead, we have the “more-Catholic-than-the-pope” Rorate Caeli crowd spreading rumors based on uncorroborated allegations of bloggers.
March 16th, 2013 | 9:28 am
I may be missing something here. On a practical level, how important is the establishment of an English-speaking ordinariate to Spanish-speaking Argentina? Aren’t Anglican Masses in Argentina celebrated in Spanish?
March 16th, 2013 | 11:38 am
If Pope Francis is really doing what the traditionalist writer complains of (e.g., “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 …”) that would seem to be a good thing to me! But I’m just a Protestant who appreciated and had affection for John Paul II so what do I know?
March 16th, 2013 | 5:06 pm
Francis Is Not Criticizing Benedict By Being Himself
There is some wishful thinking going on, and it may be among those who see Pope Francis’s small gestures of humility as harbingers of more significant changes to come, or among those who do not. On the side of the former is Marco Politi of La Repubblica quoted at length by Father Komonchak on dotCommonweal. Here’s a brief excerpt:
March 16th, 2013 | 10:50 pm
David Nickol, given Pope Francis’s prior relationships to eastern Christians who are Catholic, do you think that his emphasis on being the “Bishop of Rome” is a step toward reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox churches? (Indeed, on the balcony of St. Peter’s, he referred to Pope Benedict XVI as the former bishop of Rome – which, in my opinion, is the more appropriate title [Bishope Emeritus of Rome] as there is and always will only be one pope at any one time.)
March 18th, 2013 | 9:10 am
“…the representation of a bishop-pope and not of an emperor-pope”
Guffaw, since no one under sixty has even the remotest memory of an authoritarian Pope.
The future of this Pope may indeed be impressive, but the hype right now is embarrassing. Elsewhere here, William Doino’s FT piece is indicative, and more fitting as a press release than anything else. I agree with Mills that the early criticism of PF is out of place. But even more so may be the ridiculous spectacle of Pope-worship being demonstrated. This man might as well be Taylor Swift. Why can’t we simply let him rule, and allow his actions to define his new role? Instead, we will be subjected to umpteen columns and comments pointedly praising his INTENSE humility and RIVETING advocacy for the Poor. If I read a statement as controlled as, “He is reported to be a sincere man of faith and who in his ministry choices has also shown a strong advocacy for the poor,” I’d commend its writer. The only Catholic-authored piece I have seen so far that corresponds with journalistic sanity is that of Ross Douthat’s in the NYT, of all places. Sheeeeeeesh.
PF himself seems already pulled and tugged into pointless meetings and photo opps to the point one can rightly wonder, “How can the Pope ever even begin to get to his job?” No wonder the Church’s admin is such a mess. Makes one understand why Ratzinger ended up fleeing the position that is looking an awful lot right now like that of Friar + Hugger-in-Chief. That sound you hear is camera flashes in the background.
March 18th, 2013 | 12:20 pm
The complaint, and the inference of message stems from the difference of attitude with regard for ritual. From a traditional standpoint, ritual does not exist to convey the personality, but to communicate an underlying reality about the occasion or office. The concern is precisely that Pope Francis IS BEING HIMSELF or more to the point, putting himself before the office as compared to Benedict or John XXIII who submitted to a ritual not of their choosing, but chosen by tradition. Please consider this from the perspective of C. S Lewis:
“The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather it proves the offender’s inability to forget himself in the rite, and his readiness to spoil for every one else the proper pleasure of ritual.” – C. S. Lewis
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact