The Pope has now officially appointed Archbishop William J. Levada of San Francisco to be the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith so the rumor mill was correct. When I first heard the rumor I had thought "Can any good thing come out of Portland and San Francisco?" and then realized I don’t want to make the same mistake that Nathanael did. Maybe a Bishop who has had experience in dioceses not exactly brimming with orthodoxy is good experience for a head of the CDF. He certainly will not be bringing rose colored glasses with him to the job. So please pray for Archbishop Levada in his new role as a guardian of the Church’s doctrine. We should all be junior members of the CDF in this role.
Dom had a good post the other day on the some of the griping about, at the time, the possible appointment of Archbishop Levada and asked "If St. Peter himself came down from heaven to take up his office again, would we be happy with his curial appointments?"
I can almost imagine some posts if there had been blogs 2000 years ago about St. Peter becoming the first Pope.
|
InstaDisciple
|
|
Simon Peter is he truly Pope material? Who is this Simon aka Cephas anyway and does he truly have the qualifications to be the head of the Church? Does a fisherman have the theological skill set necessary to lead the Church? As for walking on water he started out okay, but then sunk. Can we expect the same from his papacy? A new Church will need funds to get going and what do we truly know about his fundraising abilities? Sure he can cough up a coin from a fish’s mouth in a pinch, but can we really rely on an endowment of this sort? We all know about his bragging of willing to die and subsequently denying Jesus three times. I just don’t see what Jesus sees in the guy. When it came time for his first curial appointment to replace Judas did he act like a leader? No instead of making the critical decision himself he cast lots to pick Matthias. He has even made an important decision on dietary laws based on a dream about all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air who he was ordered to kill and eat. Yes, based on a dream and then he had to be rebuked by Paul for not following his own advice. What about his pastoral skills? I think they are rather lacking. At the Transfiguration with the appearance of Moses and Elijah, he went off the deep end and his first thought was a new building project. And then there is the sad case of Ananias and his wife who were struck dead for not being fully honest in their donations to the Church. This was not exactly very pastoral and if this keeps up we won’t have many contributors. I mean even the possibility of a tax write off pales in comparison to being struck dead in Peters presence – though it might keep our accountants honest In the case of Simon Magus who wanted to buy the gifts of the Holy Spirit he was let off with only a rebuke. Not exactly a balanced pastoral approach. And what about ecumenism and all this reaching out to the gentiles? Even Jesus once called him Satan so why should we give him any slack? # Posted by InstaDisciple at 08:00 am 54 A.D. |
8 comments
That’s the greatest thing about God. He keeps giving us example after example of how with the faith of a mustard seed, we too can move past our mistakes (many pretty grave) and lead people to Christ.
Excellent post Jeff.
Very good – also Chestertonian:
When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.
GKC, Heretics CW1:70
By the way, if one wishes to find out more about the “symbolic moment” and just how symbolic it was, I would recommend And On This Rock by Fr. Stanley K. Jaki. It explains just what there is at Caesarea Philippi – it will be a surprise to you.
Funny indeed. Yet sad, because you so fittingly described what would happen. Though, let’s not forget the people who are so convinced that Peter was such a poor choice that he wouldn’t be a choice at all, therefore the Chair of Peter is just a Chair, and yes, a Chair is vacant.
Just one quibble from the traddy end of the pond. “Reaching out to the Gentiles” is not what we would condemn as false ecumenism. Peter was insistent upon CONVERTING, not “reaching out” (i.e., affirming in their heathenry) the Gentiles. Not an especially subtle distinction, but one that so many people refuse to grasp that it needs restating.
Otherwise a work of genius, Jeff.
I see this as a missed opportunity of Jesus’ part. Simon also did not respect animal rights and his record on inclusive language is terrible.
Joan the Angry of Antioch
One picky thing: “his first curial appointment to replace Jesus” should be “Judas,” no?
In addition, no papal tiara in sight; secular clothes; shuns celibacy; probably doesn’t even know Latin, let alone chant; rather scruffy; no nation will even recognize him, let alone credit ambassadors to him. His only claim to fame, his ONLY claim to fame, is an off-the-cuff-remark made to him by the LORD and CREATOR of the UNIVERSE!
:-}
I also hear Peter’s a bit of a showboat. A regular crucifixion isn’t good enough for him, NO-o-o-o, he’s gotta be a big show-off and have his crucifixion upside-down!
A Cranky Colossian
Comments are closed.