Wednesday, 13 March 2013

Frank...


There's nothing fanciful in a name. John Paul I chose such a name so as to continue the legacy of popes John XXIII and Paul VI, popes of the Second Vatican Council (and other things). John Paul II chose his name because his predecessor died only a month into his office (under suspicious circumstances if rumour is to be believed). Benedict XVI took the name benedictus on account of his admiration for St Benedict of Nursia. And now we have pope Francis. Francis was my Confirmation name. All my classmates took more common names like John and James, nice apostolic names; I chose Francis on account of Francis of Assisi, a man whose ministry I now repudiate, because he was reportedly very fond of animals, as I was of my pet dog (at the time a shih-tzu named Sammy). But pope Frank; you came out onto the balcony almost naked! This is a good sign, I think. The few Jesuits I have known (well, I did study Divinity at a Jesuit institution) have all been very congenial, intelligent men.


I'm going to be frank (no pun intended) and say I know absolutely nothing about this new pope even if I knew there'd be a Latin American. It's too early to say anything about what he plans to do; it will be commendable if he does something wildly evangelical. If he knows nothing about and cares not one whit for Liturgy then all the better for everyone. The previous pope did far too much damage with his aliturgical theories. Let us hope for something more Christological and sensible from this one.

The comments on Rorate Caeli are amusing, once again. They're hysterical! One of them says ''we're doomed! The Church is finished!'' I guess that's the danger of a little knowledge...

11 comments:

  1. "The Church is finished" is, apparently a reference to a meme. Ie, it's a common joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid I don't understand jokes, at the best of times.

      Delete
  2. He has experience with Eastern rites. That might be a good thing.

    I hope he keeps Benedict's second master of ceremonies, he was decent enough in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, I wish H.H. Francis I well and congratulate him on his election. I hope we can return to some honesty and some Christianity after the last eight years and the appalling deceit of Summorum Pontificum.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The "Rorate Caeli" article is quite appalling and hysterical. By all accounts he has very little active interest in Liturgy and I doubt he'll be idiotic enough to mess about with either Rite of the Mass knowing what a hornets nest it would inevitably stir on all sides. I know priest's frantically telephoning each other and moaning like old queens "Oh! did you see that pectoral cross!? ghastly!" as though the cross maketh the man. Would he have been my choice? No. But to write him off as some modernist demon-incarnate not twenty four hours after he assumes the office is foolish, rude and demonstrates the shallow obsessions of 1962-Traddies. There's more to life and to the Church than a rite of the Mass used for a couple of years in 1960s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, it's disgraceful. There they are sitting in judgement of a man who, by all accounts, has lived a rather ascetic life. It just proves (to me) that traditionalists are by and large mentally unstable and very unpleasant people - no wonder there were Penal Laws in England and Ireland; who wants the company or influence of such people? And papal attire is quite inconsequential. The only reason they wear white is because Pius V was a Dominican, for example.

      Delete
    2. We have contemporary portraits of earlier popes wearing white cassocks.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Pope_Julius_II_%28Raphael%29
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mass_at_Bolsena

      Delete
    3. Ahh, Julius II...I want a bigger and better basilica. I have seen that portrait; it's in our National Gallery. Popes traditionally wore red like the Cardinals. It was only after Pius V that white replaced red.

      Delete
    4. Pius V is 1566, and these were painted quite a few decades earlier. So there's probably another reason for it, but the anecdote about Pius V has probably replaced it. (Kind of like how traditionalists attach symbolical meanings to post-renaissance liturgical developments to make them seem more ancient.)

      This portrait is from the late 15th century:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Melozzo_da_Forl%C3%AC_001.jpg

      I can't seem to find out what the reason is, but it's probably just another thing to make the Pope stand out more. Or perhaps even an earlier Dominican pope, if there's some truth in the anecdote.

      And the documents seem to indicate that the sly Julius mostly wanted a bigger and "better" (cough) basilica to house his tomb. Bah.

      Delete
  5. N.B. - Just when you think Traddies couldn't get anymore unintentionally hilarious, the moment the news came out that pope Francis I has prayed at the tomb of Pius V, they're practically falling over themselves to admit they might have over-reacted last night. You couldn't make it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I find difficult to understand is how Roman Catholics seem to have reduced the office of pope, much like our Prime Minister, to a matter of party politics. If the pope is a "bridge builder," the point of meeting and reconciliation, why should it matter whether he is (or was) personally liberal, conservative or Traditionalist? Or perhaps the hysteria of these idiots is an unconscious admission that the pope's authority is indeed arbitrary and that the future of Roman Catholicism depends on the lottery of deaths, abdications and new popes. If Francis is around for several years it will be encouraging to see Benedict XVI's legacy of liturgical relativism come crashing down not by contrary legislation but by neglect and papal apathy. I imagine that by 2020 Summorum Pontificum will be redundant if this is the case.

      Delete