The former Patriarch of the West
The man formerly known as the "Patriarch of the West" pictured here with his cardinal vicar for the City:
When I first read this news report, I had a reflexive reaction of horror: the Pope has dropped a traditional title! But as far as I can tell, it makes sense to drop it if he wants to emphasize the universality of his sovereignty. He's not just another patriarch. Still, I've always thought this long string of titles to be very, very cool, and I would rather see it grow longer than shorter:
Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.
So all we know is that he dropped the title and we have some idea why. But does this mean that the position has been eliminated? Or could he confer the title on someone else? You know, say, make Roger Cardinal Mahony the new Patriarch of the West? Or, which would be less fun, make his vicar for the city for Rome, who basically serves as the Archbishop of Rome (if Rome were a normal city) the Patriarch of the West? Or does Benedict remain, in fact, the Patriarch of the West, though he doesn't want it to appear on paper?
I like my suggestion/possibility about Cardinal Mahony the best.
go to main page
by Iosephus @ 3/02/2006 01:05:00 AM
19 comments
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, ora pro nobis
St. Joseph, ora pro nobis
St. Ambrose of Milan, ora pro nobis
St. Dominic, ora pro nobis
St. Francis (and St. Clare), orate pro nobis
St. Catherine of Siena, ora pro nobis
St. Alphonsus Ligouri, ora pro nobis
St. John Chrysostom, ora pro nobis
19 Comments:
Interestingly, Walter Cardinal Kasper has just written a book on ecumenism entitled That They May All Be One wherein, according to a book review in the magazine Touchstone which I was reading last night, Kasper advocates an expanded use of the title, Patriarch of the West, precisely to emphasize Peter's role as "another of the partiarchs." Interesting timing for Benedetto to remove this title just when Kasper decides he likes it!
Yes, regardless of what certain bloggers say, this move sounds more anti- than pro- ecumenical... (if it has a deeper meaning at all). The Moscow Patriarchate seems to think so, too... (search Google News).
That's interesting about Kasper's comments....
Why not get rid of the title Bishop of Rome, since by your logic this title could imply that he is only one of many bishops?
Regardless of his motive, it's amazing how quick these moderns are to tamper with tradition.
LEAVE IT ALONE!!!
Again, I'll quote the great pagan Plato: Any change, unless to correct an evil, is itself a great evil.
Unless there is something special about the city of Rome in the first place, which we think there is, and so being bishop of it is not just to be any old bishop. And think also of this; the title is the "Bishop of Rome." It's already special because, well, is not Rome an archdiocese, really? Shouldn't he be the "Archbishop of Rome"?
Whereas we don't think there's anything special about "the West", really, except in asmuch as it contains the city of Rome. But there's no primacy to the west as opposed to the east or south or north or north north west.
The cwnews.com article made it sound "traditional" only up to a point. It has been used frequently since 1870 - but not really much since 1054. That's telling, right? Maybe it made ecumenical sense to them back in 1870 to take it up again, but after the Easterns went into schism, the popes didn't pretend they were just some patriarch.
What's rather funny is that there used to be Latin-Rite patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. After the Crusades and the fall of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, these were just titular offices held by Curia officials. So some Vatican librarian would be titular Patriarch of Constantinople. These titles were abolished in -- you guessed it -- the middle of last century. It would the same as if some monk on Mt. Athos were the schismatics' titular Exarch of Rome.
"When I first read this news report, I had a reflexive reaction of horror: the Pope has dropped a traditional title!"--Iosephus
I get the impression from the traditionalists that they are searching for anything and everything to lament. Perhaps traditionalists should consider positions in government review agencies. Those folks get paid to wave flags at "any and everything"!
In any case this is precisely the problem with setting yourself against (albeit in sincere and initially minor ways) the Church.
Johnboy,
When you can't take on our arguments you resort to petty ad hominem attacks. Your tactic is so typical. Years ago I emailed Stephen Hand, a prominent Catholic who bashes traditionalists. I was just becoming familiar with the traditions of the Catholic Church. I emailed him because I was feeling drawn to tradition and I wanted to get him to help me settle questions I had about the state of the Church. His reply was to chastise me for slandering the pope and he called me an Integrist. All I was looking for was help answering questions. Could you imagine someone who makes himself out to be a Catholic apologist speaking this way to a protestant with inquiries? I wasn't even being nasty or demeaning in my questions. Can you imagine a protestant saying, "Dear Mr. Johnboy, Could you explain to me how Catholics trust this man called The Pope to interpret Sacred Scripture? Isn't he a man, a sinner, just like everyone else?" Would Mr. Johnboy's reply be, "You dirty rotten Protestant Scum. How dare you defame the Holy Father. You are a just a silly Protestant and you'll never understand."
Of course not.
Because obviously you can rationally and reasonably answer his questions.
Why can't you do this with traditionalists?
Why can't you line up traditionalist arguments side by side and knock them down just like you and many of us can do with the most clever protestant arguments?
Because you are on the wrong side of history my friend.
Look, as the whole world lurches toward apostasy, as the Church (in her human elements) slouches toward Gomorrah, all of this like never before, and all this happening over the last forty years, just because some of us scratch our heads and say "wait a tick?" that makes us "against the Church."
Johnboy,
You see the Church is the New Israel. Go back and read your old testament. Read about the repeated apostasies within the old Israel. The old Israel was a prefigurement of the Catholic Church in these apostasies as well. Read the books of the Maccabees. The High Priest Jason (the Old Testament Pope, if you will), turned away from the Laws of God and embraced the Hellenist ways. This is a prefigurement of what is going on today. The people and the priests abandoned piety. They embraced false gods. They desecrated the sanctuaries and the altars.
This apostasy, the last great apostasy before the coming of Jesus is a prefigurement of what is happening today. Jews were a type of the Catholic Church. The Greeks were a type of today’s modernists and neo-pagans.
Joe Six Pack,
If I might defend JohnBoy for a moment, I would point out that, on this blog, whenever I have engaged in serious criticism of traditionalist arguments (or even just random, uninformed musings about the tremendous inferiority of every culture in the history of mankind other than Baroque Italy), and in particular when I debunk them on their own grounds, I typically find myself the victim of "petty ad hominem attacks."
That being said, I would argue that a cooler head might help you recognize that the Catholic Church has had a leadership problem since Saint Peter denied Christ three times. Actually, even before that, right after Christ conferred on Peter the name "Peter," and said he would found his Church upon him, Peter tried to convince Christ to avoid the Crucifixion. To which Christ responded by calling "The Rock" "Satan."
Here is something interesting that Thomas a Kempis says in "Imitation of Christ" in Chapter 16, posted today or Rorate Caeli:
"THOSE things that a man cannot amend in himself or in others, he ought to suffer patiently, until God order things otherwise. Think that perhaps it is better so for your trial and patience, without which all our good deeds are not much to be esteemed. You ought to pray notwithstanding when you have such impediments, that God would vouchsafe to help you, and that you may bear them kindly."
P/T:
I don't see your post coming to defence of Johnboy. I don't see how your post furthers the debate.
I appreciate the quote from St. Thomas. That certainly is the right attitude to take. And it's an attitude that I think is accepted by traditionalists. There are competing virtues here, however. Out of charity for neighbor we have to speak out against those things that are endangering souls: namely, false ecumenism, watered down morality, and the novus ordo missae.
You seem to assume that traditionalists aren't aware of that popes have made mistakes throughout history. Of course we know that. John XXII is a great example and all Catholics should read up on him. He held to several heretic views, but he NEVER tried to make an ex cathedra statement regarding those views.
Where I would differ with you is to suggest that what we have been going through for the last 40 years is just sort of par for the course through out Catholic history. No, that is not so. This is by far the worst apostasy within the Church in Her 2000-year history. Yes, in 1000 there was wide-scale clergy immorality. Yes, the 4th century saw many dioceses fall to Arianism. But nothing compares with this. Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. And we are in the grips of that uber-heresy. Every parish and every diocese, almost without exception, is infected to some degree with modernist theology.
Are the sacraments valid, yes.
Is the Church still indefectible, yes.
But souls are being risked like never before.
This isn't just about personal opinions or preferences over liturgical style.
The facts speak for themselves and you cannot argue with them.
Over the last 40 years (as documented by Kenneth Jones in the Index of Catholic Indicators), the people of God within the Catholic Church have virtually lost their Catholic identity and have abandoned piety and Catholic morality. The ordinary means God established for us to get to heaven are prayer, penance, frequenting the sacraments and avoiding sin. The issue of the NOM notwithstanding, Catholics are not doing these things anymore - even with the supposedly more user-friendly vernacular mass and with the revamped "reconciliation rooms."
If I die without availing myself of the ordinary means of salvation, I must assume that my soul will be at risk of eternal damnation.
This is the situation today throughout the entire Catholic world.
UVA Interviews Ken Jones, Author of Index of Leading Catholic Indicators
Una Voce America director Fred Haehnel recently sat down with Ken Jones, vice president of Una Voce St. Charles, to discuss his new book, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II. Mr. Jones is an attorney and legal publisher in St. Louis. His translation from the French of Cardinal Hoyos’ letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X was published in the August-September 2002 issue of Inside the Vatican.
Why did you decide to put together your Index of Leading Catholic Indicators? For two reasons primarily. First, there really isn’t any other single, easy-to-read source that collects the vital statistics of the Church. This book was born out of frustration. I had heard a lot of vague references to a “priest shortage,” but I discovered that when I wanted to examine the extent of the shortage or the trends over several decades, it was difficult to get my hands on a good reference. Moreover, statistics about other areas of Church life besides the priesthood - such as nuns, Catholic school students, baptisms and marriages - were even more difficult to find. I spent a lot of time tracking down these numbers, and decided to write the book because I thought other people would be interested in looking at them too.
My second reason for writing the book was to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the effects of the Second Vatican Council. We all have our own gut feelings about the Church since Vatican II. Some insist we’re experiencing a vibrant renewal, others say we’re suffering through an era of unprecedented disintegration. I’m a lawyer - I want evidence, not feelings or anecdotes, to support my verdict.
What is your verdict? I can only agree with what Cardinal Ratzinger said: “We find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence. ... It is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church.” Since Cardinal Ratzinger made these remarks in 1984, the crisis in the Church has accelerated. In every area that is statistically verifiable – for example, the number of priests, seminarians, priestless parishes, nuns, Mass attendance, converts and annulments – the “process of decadence” is undeniable.
Do you find any of the statistics particularly striking? The crisis in the priesthood is obviously of supreme concern for all Catholics, since a lack of priests diminishes our access to the sacraments. One little statistic that encapsulates the crisis is this - there are more priests age 80 to 84 than there are age 30 to 34. Looking at it from a strictly secular point of view, there’s not much of a future for any organization that has more front-line workers in their 80's than in their 30's. The handwriting is on the wall. By 2020 there will be only about 15,000 priests below the age of 70.
The shortage of priests has created a problem unknown to modern Catholics – the priestless parish. Parishes without a resident priest were virtually unknown at the time of the Council; only 3 percent of them, 549, were without a priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.
As one would expect, the priest dearth has been fueled by a collapse in the seminarian population. There were 49,000 seminarians in 1965. By 2002 the number had plunged to 4,700 - a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, countless seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.
The devastation of religious orders of women since Vatican II can only be described as shocking. In 1965 there were almost 180,000 nuns in the United States. Today there are 75,000, with an average age of 69. By 2020 we have projected that there will be 21,000 below age 70. It is not being an alarmist to say that within our lifetime, there will be virtually no nuns in the United States - a stunning turn of events since 1965.
Do the statistics show anything about the ordinary life of Catholics? Again, in all areas there has been a dramatic decline. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms, in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms - converts - in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1968 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.
Attendance at Mass has also plummeted. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.
What about Catholic education? This is one area that particularly surprised me, because I was not aware of how dramatically enrollment has declined at Catholic schools since the Council. For example, between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786, and the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000. At the grade school level, there were 10,503 parochial schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.
Some people say, “We know the numbers have declined since the Council, but the downward trend started before the Council.” How do you respond? I respond by saying it’s simply not true. An especially helpful feature to my book is that my statistical analysis starts in the 1920s and 1930s, so trends can be discovered. For example, look at the number of total seminarians. There were about 9,000 in 1920, 17,000 in 1940, 25,000 in 1950, almost 40,000 in 1960, and 49,000 in 1965 - a consistent trend upward. In 1970 there were 28,000 seminarians - a decline of over 41 percent in just five years. In 2002 there were 4,700. This pattern is reflected in every area - a steady increase until the Council, and a dramatic decline afterwards.
Here’s another objection. Some people might say that you’re making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument - just because something happened after the Council doesn’t mean it was caused by the Council. Do you have an answer to that? My response is this. For several decades before the Council, the Church in America was in the midst of an unprecedented period of growth. Immediately after the Council, which was called to renew the Church - to make the numbers even better, really - we were hit with a tremendous decline in every area. The correlation is just too striking to deny.
In the end, though, my purpose in writing the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators is not to make any argument at all - it’s simply to present the facts to people so they can come to their own conclusions.
Index of Leading Catholic Indicators is available for purchase ($16.95 plus $3 postage and handling) at www.catholicindicators.com
Jones also cites that 93% of Catholic school DREs reported (in 2002) that they do not believe in the Church's teaching on artificial contraception!
Please, tell me again that all serious Catholic should just keep quite and "patient" during this apostasy.
Joe Six Pack,
Those are some sobering numbers. Thanks for sharing them. Do you happen to know Jones' methodology? Not that some academic dispute about statistics would have all that drastic an impact on a problem any sane person can recognize, but I'd be intrigued to know how he went about compiling and verifying all of these statistics.
At the same time, I think you missed my points, which were the following:
A. I find accusations that "ad hominem attacks" by JohnBoy are "typical" (impliedly typical for us blue-skying, Novus Ordonese speaking pseduo-catholics since we clearly have no real facts on our side) a bit inconsistent. I think everyone in the blogosphere engages in a bit of ad hominem attacking every now and then. I myself have unfortunately engaged in it. I have also been its victim. I hardly think you can categorize something like petty sarcastic dismissal as exclusively the province of those with whom you have disagreements. As I have said before, remove the plank from your own eye.
B. Patience and sobriety are important in discussing the problems in the Church. Problems aren't going to be fixed in a day, and we are all human, and we are all sinners. The leaders of the Church are fallible, and can and do make mistakes.
All of that is not to say that I think you should keep your mouth quiet. Calling a spade a spade is commendable. My reference to the passage from Imitation of Christ was more of a Lenten exhortation than an accusation.
I don't question that the Church is in a serious crisis. The worst apostacy in its history? I'm not sure. The Protestant Reformation strikes me as probably worse, for starters. In point of fact, isn't the most challenging accusation about the Novus Ordo that it smacks of "Protestantization"?
I'd also say that there is a certain "wheat and weeds" aspect to the Church's problems right now. A bishop, and especially the Pope, understands that parable in a unique way. Each pastoral decision directed at pulling out a weed can also pull up wheat. It is easy for us to arm-chair quarterback the leadership in the Church. But if we are fair, prayerful and honest, we can recognize that it is unwise for us to judge the Holy Father too harshly. You cite his obvious statements that the Church is in a state of crisis. I consider Pope Benecit a hero, and relish that a person with the clairvoyance to diagnose the Church's problems sits in the See of Peter. Given that, let us rest assured that he alone must prayerfully determine how best to direct the Barque.
P/T:
You raise some good points.
I'm not a big fan of argumentation by parable: removing planks from eyes, wheat and weeds, and all that. If they're going to be used however I think some clear points need to precede or follow. Left on their own, I don't think they advance any of our discussions.
As for this being the worst apostasy in Church history, frankly that's a fact. Pius X declared modernism the culmination of all heresies and the facts I mentioned from the Kenneth Jones books speak for themselves.
I've studied the Middles Ages, and somewhat the early Church period, but I'd be happy if you could point me in the direction of some scholarship that makes the case that some previous period in Church history saw a more wide-spread and devastating apostasy than what we are seeing today.
I thank you for your reminder for me to watch my words regarding the Holy Father, and I'll try and continue to keep that in mind. But I'd ask you to be careful and not misconstrue every reasoned and sincere criticism of the current hiarchy of the Church as some sort of harsh "attack" or slander against the pope. Because I don't believe I've engaged in those types of things.
One of the many other things which disturbs me, and I think most traditional Catholic, is this attitude of external locus of control regarding the problems in the Church. Both the neo-Catholic laity and the Church hierarchy seem to chalk up bad news to "the age we live in" or some other sort of situation beyond anyone's control.
Kenneth Jones points out in his Index of "Leading Catholic Indicators" the percentage of lay religion teachers employed by Catholic schools who identify the Church's position on a litany of issues with their own personal position. I offer this to the group only to show an example of something that seems well within the bounds of priests and bishops being able to strongly influence. Don't they (or shouldn't they at any rate) determine who gets hired and fired in a Catholic school?
The litany of issues ranges from belief in the Church's teaching on Artificial Birth Control to the belief in the existence of God. Birth Control being the least embraced doctrine and God's existence being the most, and all the other doctrines falling in order in between.
I'll list only a few:
10% of Catholic school religion educators believe in the Church's teaching on artificial birth control.
26% of Catholic school religion educators believe in the Church's teaching on elective abortion.
I actually was most taken aback by the last few issues, the ones embraced by the greatest number of religion educators.
91% believe in the divinity of Jesus. To me it's startling that 9% don't believe in the divinity of Jesus!
And, 98% percent believe in the existence of God. Even accounting for some room for error, this still must equate to several hundred atheist religion teachers in Catholic schools!
{Jones cites The Catholic Character of Catholic Schools, University of Notre Dame Press, 2000)
Just as I said. Count on the Russian Orthodox to call a spade a spade.
On guard!
When some of us suggest that the problems of the Church are related to the times we live in, I don't think we're saying such changes are outside the "locus of control" of the Pope and the Bishops. They certainly are, if we had more Christ-like Bishops and Popes, Popes of the past may or may not have been more Christ-like, but they didn't have the same level of cultural impact going on in the Church we do now.
Certainly Vatican II has had an impact on the Church in the last 40 years. It seems likely that due to the hijacking by liberals that much liberalism occurred. Where it not for the council, would this have not occurred at all? would it have occurred less? Less seems to be the likely scenario in my opinion... However, it's entirely possible that large portions of the Church might have gone into formal schism, and/or simply departed as individuals to the less "rigid" protestant denominations.
What would be the state today? None of us can ever know. So why worry about it? Let's look at what we can do to restore the Church "realistically". Eliminate the NO? Completely unrealistic... reform the NO? Absolutely, bring back orientation, lot's of Latin, communion kneeling and on the tongue, restore some of the prayers, and the calendar, eliminate the abuses (probably the single most important one).
Just as I said the from the start, the pope dropped the one title that the Orthodox should have found acceptable. A Reuter's report here.
Post a Comment
<< Home