Fr. Z gives his opinion about the legacy of John Paul II, even though he did not agree with that creation of Divine Mercy Sunday in the Roman rite. I don't know if he would judge it a problematic papal modification of the Roman rite, but I do think that it was, symptomatic of problem with how the authority of the patriarch of Rome is conceived.
At one point, back in 2016, I said that John Paul should be declared Doctor of the Church, with the nickname, Doctor Misericordiae. His teaching contributions to the Church are numerous. Also the movement to have him declared such would surely slow the obvious systematic erosion of his body of teaching as Pope. For the last few years, what John Paul upheld and clarified about, for example, objective truth and morals, has been under attack at the highest levels. I cannot shake the idea that Benedict wrote what he wrote to the Polish bishops in part because of the manifest attack on John Paul’s magisterial writings. There has also been a methodical purge of the last Woytlians and Ratzingerians in the Curia and Roman school. It seems to me that Divine Mercy Sunday would be a good day for such a declaration. Perhaps it’s time to jump start that project. I resonate also with the position that it takes some time to absorb the impact of a saint’s writings. Still, given the offensive against his magisterium, sooner could be better than later.
When you read Papa Ratzinger’s aforementioned letter, don’t skip over his description of resistance to plastering over the ancient Sunday “in albis” with the modern innovation of “Divine Mercy” Sunday. I share that resistance. I have nothing against the modern devotion, but I don’t think it’s promotion should be at the expense of something so ancient and deeply rooted. But I digress.
His body of writings, including his encyclicals, must be individually separated into dogma and theological opinion.What the patriarchate of Rome wants to do with the conferral of honors to be recognized by the patriarchate of Rome is up to the patriarchate of Rome. However, calling them doctors "of the Church" is beyond the scope of its authority, though ultramontanist Latins continue to believe that it isn't.
I don't even think that Ratzinger's theology should be promoted in such a manner, and I think Ratinzger's theology will have greater staying power. What should be promoted is a true habit of theology among the priests and bishops of the patriarchate of Rome, one which enables them to distinguish properly between dogma and theological opinion. Chances of this happening in the next ten years on a wide scale? Very small.
alternate at Shalom
No comments:
Post a Comment