Sunday, June 30, 2013

So did the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI signal the end of an era?

Is the papacy changing?

[I]n marking his first 29 June as Peter's 265th successor, the first Francis to occupy the Chair kept to his own script in repeatedly veering from his prepared homily to speak of, among other things, an enhanced spirit of "synodality," or collegiality, between the Roman pontiff and the college of bishops.
Here, the Pope's portrayal of "the Synod" was that of the episcopal college, full stop – just as the term entails in each Eastern church. Ergo, the combination of the concept and the spontaneous reference amid today's feast serve to indicate what could be a significant change to the form of Petrine governance kicking around in Papa Bergoglio's mind. - Whispers In the Loggia

United in our differences.

The Prophecy of Malachy supposedly referred to Benedict as the last Pope, and his successor as Peter the Roman.  If true, the Peter the Roman thing makes sense, seeing how Pope Francis prefers to identify himself as the Bishop of Rome.  Whether or not the prophecies are true, things in this papacy are much different.

If Dolan would've made it in,
there'd be a lot more pomp - and cocktails!



  1. I think you have a good point, Terry. I also think that the ssm phenomena is a landmark to the end of an age.

  2. Has Bergoglio ever referred to himself as "Pope?" If he doesn't consider himself the Pope, why should anyone else?

    1. I think he has once or twice in addressing bishops - but I have no citations.

    2. Fewer & fewer people give any regard to papal teaching & authority. It seems Pope Francis is undermining it even further.

  3. Anonymous3:25 PM

    I am confused by this a bit. I struggle to see how being united in our differences is the way of Jesus, given that Jesus took a non-negotiable approach at times - or so it seems to me at least.

    I remember coming across some ideas in ecclesiology that downplayed the importance of the Pope. They suggested that wherever the local Bishop is of a given diocese is where the Church is - the Bishop is the Vicar of Christ in his diocese. I had trouble understanding that, if the Bishop disagreed with the Pope or other Bishops.

    1. These are novel ideas. The correct, Catholic, understanding is that the Pope has supreme authority in the Church. Each bishop has authority in his diocese only, but it is dependent on him being in union with the Pope. So we are bound to follow our bishop unless he severs his unity with the Pope, as happened in England and elsewhere during the reformation.

      In my opinion (not just mine), "collegiality" is not a good thing for the Church. It coerces an individual bishop to go along with the group and inhibits him from preaching what is true because he will not be perceived as a team player.

  4. +JMJ+

    Do you know what this reminds me of?

    Several years ago, when the Left Behind novels first started coming out, a friend of mine tried a couple and remarked to me: "They can't be that anti-Catholic if the Pope gets raptured, too." My curiosity piqued, I borrowed her copy of the first book. I stopped reading as soon as I had finished the paragraph about the fictional pope--a new pontiff who had recently shocked Catholics by instituting reforms very similar to those of Martin Luther. Well, of course! =P

  5. I can see 'united in our differences' being used everywhere and just about anyone. Just wait until Nancy Pelosi picks it up.

  6. Anonymous5:11 AM


    That's what I thought the correct, Catholic understanding is too. It's why I was confused by that different theology of the Church. It seems to me it's implicitly relativistic.


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.