Of a Catholic Cardinal - or what I told the Pope.
Reading in the Biffi…
Cardinal Giacomo Biffi’s new book seems to be a must read for anyone concerned about the inner workings of the Magisterium, or at least the observations and opinions of one more or less traditional cardinal. Sandro Magister has a good overview of the book, with lengthy excerpts, which are somewhat provocative. I think traditional Catholics will see they have had a friend in Cardinal Biffi, especially since some of his criticisms clearly echo their own. (Remember, I’m not a Vatican watcher, nor a cleric groupie, so I know little to nothing about Biffi - which is also why I find his book interesting.)
Who’s sorry now?
Not every Catholic unhappy with JPII’s apology to the world for the sins of Catholics throughout the centuries were traditionalists or sedes - normal, middle of the road Catholics had a few problems with the concept as well. Cardinal Biffi did too. Here is what he had to write about it:
At table, the Holy Father said to me at one point: “Did you see that we have changed that statement in ‘Tertio millennio adveniente’?” The draft, which had been sent to the cardinals before publication, contained this expression: “The Church acknowledges as her own the sins of her children”; an expression that - as I had stated with respectful frankness - could not be set forward. In the definitive text, the idea had been changed as follows: “The Church always acknowledges as her own her sinful children.” At that moment, the pope took care to remind me of this, knowing that it must have pleased me.
I replied by expressing my gratitude and manifesting my complete satisfaction with the theological formulation. But I also felt prompted to add a reservation of a pastoral nature: the unheard-of initiative of asking pardon for the errors and inconsistencies of past centuries wouldto, in my view, scandalize the “little ones,” those most favored by Jesus (cf. Matthew 11:25): because the faithful, who do not know how to make many theological distinctions, would see these self-accusations as a threat against their serene adhesion to the ecclesial mystery, which (as all the professions of faith tell us) is essentially a mystery of sanctity.
And these were the very words of the pope’s reply: “Yes, that is true. That will require some thought.” Unfortunately, he did not reflect on it sufficiently. - www.Chiesa
That evil Council and “aggiornamento”.
I think many trads believe the Council has been the source of pretty much all of our troubles in the Church, often accusing key players of deception and dirty tricks. Cardinal Biffi just may agree:
“Pope Roncalli had assigned to the Council, as its task and objective, the “internal renewal of the Church,” an expression more pertinent than the word “aggiornamento” (”updating,” also one of John XXIII’s words), which, however, met with undeserved success.
This was certainly not the intention of the supreme pontiff, but “aggiornamento” included the idea that the “holy nation” should seek to conform itself more closely, not to the eternal plan of the Father and his desire for salvation (as it had always believed it should do in its attempts at genuine “reform”), but to the “giornata” (”day”; to temporal, worldly history); and it thus gave the impression of indulging in “chronolatry,” to use the expression of disdain coined later by Maritain.
This was certainly not the intention of the supreme pontiff, but “aggiornamento” included the idea that the “holy nation” should seek to conform itself more closely, not to the eternal plan of the Father and his desire for salvation (as it had always believed it should do in its attempts at genuine “reform”), but to the “giornata” (”day”; to temporal, worldly history); and it thus gave the impression of indulging in “chronolatry,” to use the expression of disdain coined later by Maritain.
Was there not pastoral relevance in the clear statement that Jesus of Nazareth was God and consubstantial with the Father, as had been defined at Nicea? Was there not pastoral relevance in clarifying the realism of the Eucharistic presence and the sacrificial nature of the Mass, as happened at Trent? Was there not pastoral relevance in presenting the primacy of Peter in all its value and all its implications, as Vatican Council I had taught? - www.Chiesa
“He’s no Pope, he should be selling bananas.”
Supposedly those are Cardinal Spellman’s words about Pope John XXIII upon returning to NYC after the conclave which elected Roncalli. Cardinal Biffi is not as critical, indeed, he respected John XXIII, stating he was a good Pope, but a bad teacher. Which is kind of a contradiction in terms, since I thought the Pope’s role is to teach. Again, here’s the Biffi:
There were just a few statements of his that I found puzzling. And these were precisely the ones that won over hearts and minds more than any others, because they seemed consistent with people’s instinctive aspirations.
There was, for example, his judgment of reproof on the “prophets of doom.”
The expression became, and remained, extremely popular, and naturally so: the people do not like party poopers; they prefer those who promise good times over those who advance fears and reservations. And I, too, admired the courage and drive, during the last years of his life, of this “young” successor of Peter.
But I recall that a sense of perplexity seized me almost immediately. In the history of Revelation, the true prophets were the ones who usually announced chastisements and calamities, as in Isaiah (chapter 24), Jeremiah (chapter 4), and Ezekiel (chapters 4-11). - www.Chiesa
The sounds of silence… on Communism.
Cardinal Biffi delicately phrases his words on the seemingly glaring oversight of the Second Vatican Council to condemn communism, which may lend support to factions of conspiracy theorists regarding the infiltration of the Council by communist sympathizers. The Cardinal does not go so far as to say this, but he does note the omissions of any mention of communism in the Council documents. More from the cardinal:
“Communism: the Council does not address this. If one attentively scans the comprehensive index [of the Council documents], it is stunning to confront this categorical silence.
Communism (for the first time in the history of human folly) had practically imposed atheism upon the populations subjected to it, as a sort of official philosophy and a paradoxical “religion of the state”; and the Council, although it addresses the case of atheists, does not speak of it.
During the same years when the ecumenical council sessions were being held, the communist prisons were still places of unspeakable sufferings and humiliations inflicted upon numerous “witnesses of the faith” (bishops, priests, devoted lay believers in Christ); and the Council does not speak of it. - www.Chiesa
I can’t wait to read the entire book.
Go to www.Chiesa to read the excerpt from the book on what the Cardinal told the Pope after Ratzinger had been elected to the Chair of Peter.
Just what we need, more Catholic blogs!
