Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

Ratzinger the Reasonable

Admit it, you thought this was going to be about Regensburg, didn't you?
We need to be reminded that although the efforts by the great reformer and patron saint of all Europe certainly found an echo down these centuries in this Future Doctor of the Church, (hereafter, FDotC,) it was another Benedict by whom the Pope Emeritus is said to have been inspired to name himself.

So why should it surprise anyone that he is a nurturer of communion, a bringer of peace?

Catching myself up on some old, (by which, in the Age of Twitter, I mean having occurred this summer,)  sectarian shenanigans, which involved a terrible blurring of the line between Faith and political loyalties.
And by "terrible" I do not mean merely extreme, but also very bad. (I may write more about that anon, anon.)
When the argument strayed more onto the churchy side of things, I came across the same quote from the then Cardinal Ratzinger, several times and it tickled, but yes, saddened me, that it was used by both sides in the argument, and both thought it demonstrated the same truth about Pope Benedict, ne Joseph R.
Rad Trads seem to use it as evidence that Ratzinger was an Evil Progressive. Foggy Proggies, likewise used it to prove that Ratz had those fusty old Trads number, and roundly condemned them.
See his words for yourself. In 1982 he wrote:
Was the [2nd Vatican] Council a wrong road that we must now retrace if we are to save the Church? The voices of those who say that it was, are becoming louder and the followers more numerous. Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for a sense of the mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly.
QED! (whatever you want to D....)
But both used the quote dishonestly, for he continued, in the same paragraph:
But we must likewise ask ourselves, in all earnestness why such contractions and distortions of faith and piety have such an effect and are able to attract those who, by the basic conviction of their faith as well as by personal inclination, are in no way attracted by sectarianism. What drives them into a milieu where they do not belong? Wh have they lost the feeling of being at home in the larger Church? Are all their reproaches unfounded? is it not, for example, really strange that we have never heard bishops react as strongly against distortions in the heart of the liturgy as they react today against a Missal of the Church that, after all, has been in existence since the time of Pius V? Let it be said again: we should not adopt a sectarian attitude, but neither should we omit the examination of conscince to whihc these fact compel us.
I am so tired of dishonesty in debate.
We see that Papa Ratz, as ALWAYS, was moderate, modest and reasonable ..... and above all, CATHOLIC.
Could he be our president?

No comments: