Merry Christmas--God So Loved The World That He Sent His Only Son

Well, we finally finished the series on what an evangelical renewal of Religious Life might look at.  I was relieved to hear from one reader, Olllddude, that he (I presume a he) “really enjoyed” it because my readership went waaaay down over the two weeks or so I was posting it. It just isn’t as sexy as calling out the krazies or hitting issues like who gets to go to Holy Communion or just how many silk worms have laid down their lives so that Cardinal Burke can cut his dashing figure at Christmas Midnight Mass.   Nevertheless, I am glad to have written it because I believe that the renewal of Religious Life is a top priority for a renewal of the Church.  Love ‘em or leave ‘em, the Nuns on the Bus and the LCWR mavens arguing with the plump prelates of the CDF get the rest of us thinking, arguing, and looking at the issues.  And if these same women—and the guy Religious too—got their act together in terms of a truly evangelical life-style that shook the rest of us out of our cultural complacency, I think our Church would be something very different.  Not only would our favorite member of the Sacred College find himself under inpatient care for his wardrobe affectations that are somewhat of a hybrid of Louis XIV and Lady Gaga, but we would be freed of the web woven by the culture wars that are confusing the platform of the Religious Right for the Gospel of Jesus Christ in how we reach out to Gays, the Remarried, the Cohabitating, and those for whom English is a second language.  But enough about all that for now.  I want to get to the purpose of this particular posting. 

Purpose of this particular posting, Oh! I almost forgot: Merry Christmas.  Let’s remember that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son that whoever believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.  God did not send his Son to condemn the World, but so that the World might be saved through him.  Not my original idea, but it works so well, I want to borrow it.

About a week and a half ago I had a response from a reader named Christopher.  Christopher got a little itchy about my not responding right away, but that was, I assured him, because I didn’t want just to do a response hidden away beneath the posting to which he was reacting, but to do a posting on the questions he raised  about several of my entries, and in particular about my claim that the translation “for many” is not a good translation of the “pro multis” found in the Latin text of the Mass because the “pro multis” itself is a faulty translation of the Greek original.  But before I go further, let me post Christopher’s remarks. 

I've read your back posts concerning 'pro multis', and you're simply mistaken in your reading of the Greek. The phrase which is rendered into Latin as 'pro multis' is not, as you state, 'hoi polloi' ("the many" or "the multitude") but 'peri pollwn', which can only mean "for many" or "on behalf of many" (which is why it's rendered precisely as such in modern translations of the New Testament, which are based directly on the Greek). And while "for many" CAN be interpreted with a Calvinist slant, it need not be. It's perfectly consistent with the Catholic belief that those who, in fact, are reprobate need not have been and could have freely availed themselves of salvation through Christ. Your preferred translation of "for all," however, is extremely problematic, since the only way you can rule out universal salvation (if indeed you wish to rule it out) is to say that Christ's suffering was at least partially in vain (i.e., his suffering for those who would nonetheless reject salvation on Foundations of the Anglican Church XCVIX

Well, let me begin by coming clean.  When I referred to the Greek word πολλοι I referred to it in the nominative case. (Greek, unlike English, is a highly inflected language, which means that a word changes its case (nouns or adjectives) or tense (verb) depending on its role in the sentence.  A noun, or the adjective that agrees with it, which is the subject of the sentence is in the “nominative case.”  A noun (and its adjectives) which is object of the action of the verb, is in the “accusative case.” And so on, there being distinct cases for indirect objects, to imply possession, to follow certain prepositions etc.  This exists only barely in English but we can find remnants of inflection in pronouns: “I” am the subject of this sentence.   But when you are talking about “me” you might need to use the accusative case following the preposition “about.”  When you give “me” a gift you also would use the accusative case since “me” refers to the object of the action of the verb “give.”   (Actually, that could be a dative since I am the indirect object and not the direct object of the verb, but we don’t have a dative in English and thus the indirect object in English is in the accusative case. And now of course that gift is “mine” which is the possessive form of the pronoun “I.”   I hope you get this concept because in all honesty as a freshman in high school starting Latin I, it was the most difficult concept for me to grasp.  Even though I instinctively get it right in English 99.9% of the time, I never really understood it until well into Latin III.  And then there was Greek.  And German.  And Hebrew.  Fortunately French and Italian are not so highly inflected—they are more like English but you still have to watch out a bit. 

In any case, when referring to a noun in a foreign language the convention is that one refers to it in the nominative case regardless of how it is used in the sentence.  And so I referred to ‘οι πολλοι in the nominative when in fact it is, as Christopher points out πολλϖν, the genitive (possessive) case in the Greek.  The reason that it is in the genitive is that it follows the preposition περι which means, “concerning” and περι takes the genitive case when it means “about” or “concerning.”   That provides us with the first level of our answer. (Just in case you feel like we have slipped through the looking glass, be assured that in academics this surrealism is our version of normal.  Just think of what it would have been like if Sheldon Cooper had gone into Liberal Arts rather than Physics.) 

It has been a long time since I studied last studied Greek (44 years to be precise) though I do remember hashing all this out again when I did my theological work. But just to be sure, I went over the classical languages department and sat down with one of our Greek scholars and had him review it with me. 

Whereas when one refers to a noun in the nominative in Greek, as in English, one usually places the article, in this case ‘οι (which means “the”), the article would not normally be used in Koine Greek after the preposition περι.  (Koine is the Greek dialect used throughout much of the eastern end of the Roman Empire at the time the Christian Scriptures [as well as the Old Testament Septuagint] were composed.  Koine distinguishes the popular Greek of the Graeco-Roman world from the Attic Greek of Thucydides (5^th century BC) or the archaic Ionic of Homer in an even earlier period.  The significance is not in the absence of the yet implied “‘οι” in the word πολλοι (genitive: πολλϖν) itself.  While it means “many” it is not, as it is in English, an adjective nor as in the Words of Institution, an adjective acting as a noun (poured out for you and for many).  The word πολλοι, or more properly, ‘οι πολλοι is a noun and it  means not “many” in a restrictive sense, but “a multitude,” or “the masses,” or in the phrase of Edward George Earle Bulwer Lytton Bulwer (only an Englishman could carry such a name) and much cherished by Winston Churchill: “the great unwashed.”  There is not a universality but an inclusivity built into the word at which the English “many” fails.

So how do we translate it.  The French have, I believe, done it best: pour la multitude.   The problem with a prayer that says that Christ’s blood was shed for “many” is that Christ did not die for many.  He in fact died for all.  This does not mean that all accept the salvation offered them in Christ’s blood, but it is our Catholic faith that the Redemptive Sacrifice offered by Christ on Calvary and renewed in each Mass is sufficient for the salvation of humankind. 

The problem with universal salvation—that all will be saved—is that ultimately it denies freedom of the will.  If we are all saved then we have no choice but to accept the Love of God.  Going back to the beginning of the third century, the Christian tradition condemned this teaching that all are saved precisely because it robs us of our freedom of the will.  Universal salvation requires that we are ultimately compelled to love God and be loved by him for all eternity.  There is no shortage of Catholics greats—including Saint Thérèse if Lisieux who, in forfeit of proper catechesis, so believed however.  And of course, while we cannot hold that all people will be saved we can hope that each person will be saved, the end result being somewhat the same while the later formula leaves the individual’s freedom of will intact. 

When Innocent X condemned Jansenism in 1653 this issue of Christ dying for all, many, some, or a few was raised.  The Jansenists, who in their Catholic mutation of Calvin’s heresy of double predestination, claimed that it conformed to the Semipelagian heresy to claim that Christ died or shed his blood for all men.  Pope Innocent condemned that proposition of Janesnism, and in so doing established that our Catholic faith does indeed claim that Christ died/shed his blood, for all.  Kontemporary Katholic Krazieism today is nothing other than a strain of Jansenism redivivus.  The fuss over the Words of Institution asserting that Christ died for all was a thorn in their double-predestination side as it means that all people are (potentially) saved in as much as Christ’s redemptive act is sufficient for the salvation of all.  Again, remember, though that our free will enables us to reject the gift.    And since the inadequate “for many” translation has been revived in the current translation of the Roman Missal, the krazies in their sermons, talks, blogs, and videos have used the liturgical text to advance their Jansenist poison claiming that the liturgy makes it clear that Christ did not die for all but only for those who will be saved.  I have noticed that since the ascendency of Pope Francis, more and more elements of the previous translation are slipping back into the Mass.  I for one am glad to see many priests going back to the “for all.” 

That being said, let’s slip from the rabbit hole back into the light of day—Christmas Day—and celebrate that wonderful mysterium fidei:  God so loved the world that he sent his only Son that whoever believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.  God did not send his Son to condemn the World, but so that the World might be saved through him.   God’s Will, whatever our freedom, is that all people be saved.  

A Katholic Krazie and An Old Heresy

Cornelius Jansen 

I knew it was a huge mistake when the new translation of the Roman Missal came out and the words of consecration were translated “for many” rather than “for all.”  (if you are interested in this, check the side bar for “pro multis” and that will link you to the four postings I did on this subject in 2011 and 2012.)  In the first place while “for many” is a literal translation of the Latin “pro multis” it is a faulty translation because it fails to translate the original Greek text, ‘οί πολλοί, from which the Latin is itself translated.  (The New Testament accounts of the Last Supper, like the remainder of the New Testament, were written in Greek.)  ‘Οί πολλοί means “the many”—an inclusive term signifying the vast multitudes of people.  We know it in English as “the hoi polloi” meaning the common run of humanity, although “the” here is a bit redundant. Greek, like English, has articles. ‘Οί is Greek for “the.”  Latin doesn’t have articles and so the Greek inclusive “the many” became the Latin restrictive “many.”  This has a huge impact for soteriology (the theology of salvation) as it implies that Christ did not die for all but only for some, namely those “many” (but not all) who were to be saved.  This proposition that Christ did not die for all was condemned by Pope Innocent X  in 1653 in the first salvo the Holy See fired against the Jansenist heresy. 

Jansenism, a heresy that stresses the fallen nature of humankind and overstresses the idea of the “election” of the saved, has never been completely wiped out; indeed it is very much the foundation for many of the Catholic neo-traditionalists ranging from the Krazies among the sedevacantists at Mount Saint Michael in Spokane to “Catholic” commentators like Michael Voris.  Jansenism is commonly said to have spread to America via the Irish clergy who came here in the 19^th and early 20^th century—and Irish Catholicism has in its blood a streak of Jansenism picked up from Irish clergy who studied in France during penal times.  But the real infestation of Jansenism came to America even before the Irish migration with émigré clergy fleeing the French Revolution. It found its American home in Mount Saint Mary’s, a seminary founded in 1808 by Father John Dubois and other French priests in the Catotctin Mountains of Maryland.  Jansenism must infest the old floorboards of “The Mount” as despite valiant efforts to erase it on the part of various deans and some faculty over the years it has managed to take root in the hearts of certain grads, and through them has spread to infect the faithful in various eastern dioceses that send their candidates to Mount Saint Mary’s for training.  The Diocese of Arlington Virginia seems particularly vulnerable to infection both in its priests and some of its more outspoken laity. 

Jansenism is basically “Catholic Calvinism.”  It is derived from the writings of Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638), a theologian and Bishop of Ypres in what is today Belgium.  Flanders, the province in which Ypres is located, then was part of the seventeen provinces, a component unit of the Hapsburg Empire where the Eighty Years war was being waged as the Calvinists were trying to win their independence from their Catholic Habsburg rulers.  In the end Flanders remained under Hapsburg rule and Catholicism was restored, but through much of this period Flanders—like the northern provinces that would become the Netherlands—was dominated by Calvinism.  In the highly intellectual atmosphere of the Calvinist Republic of Ghent, certain points of Calvinist theology spilled over into Catholic circles and Cornelius Jansen’s theology of grace and predestination had a strong scent of Calvinism to it.  Jansen’s book, Augustinus, gave a Calvinist read to the teachings of Saint Augustine of Hippo—the great theologian of the Catholic West.  The resultant distortions of Augustine’s theology of Grace produced a conviction among Jansen’s followers that Christ only died for those who would accept his sacrifice, and did not die so that all might accept his Grace.  This same error was made by Calvin and became one of the distinguishing marks of Calvinism.  This distorted Catholicism was very influential in France in the 17^th century and even its condemnation by several popes did not lessen its influence. 

Jansenism persists today.  Katholic Krazy Mary Anne Kreitzer of Woodstock Virginia who tilts at the windmills of “liberal” Catholicism under the banner of Les Femmes recently published on her blog

Jesus warned about Gehenna more than anything else during his life on earth. He died to save people from it. The Mass (since the restoration of the millenial "for many" at the Consecration) is proof positive that ALL are NOT SAVED because Jesus could only die for the salvation of the many who would accept His sacrifice. Note that the bad thief got no guarantee of paradise. Did he repent in the end? Maybe. Let's pray he did, but we have no evidence of it.

Well, Ms. Kreitzer should read her bible as bit more assiduously as while Jesus certainly did warn us about Gehenna, he did not do so  nearly as much as he warned us about the false teachings of those scribes and Pharisees who were so confident in their own religiosity and despised those whose views were so narrow.  But it is interesting that not only does Ms. Kreitzer espouse the Jansenist doctrine that Christ did not die for all but only for those who would accept his grace, but she uses the faulty translation of the pro-multis to justify it.

A few months back I attended a funeral in upstate New York and the principle celebrant of the Mass—a cassock-wearing, biretta bedecked gentleman in his seventies—pointedly said “for you and for all” as he consecrated the chalice at the funeral Mass.  I chided him about this at the luncheon afterward and he took umbrage as he said: “I have no choice; I will not give in to heresy.  Christ died for all and we must never say otherwise.”  Father then pointed out to me that while one cannot say that all are saved, one must be uncompromising in the faith that Christ died so that all might be saved.  And—to my surprise—this priest is a graduate of Mount Saint Mary’s.  But must have been in better days.  

The "heresy" of Benedict XVI

Jean Jacques Olier, a defender

of Catholic Orthodoxy against

the Jansenists 

So what is the problem with the new translation of the “pro multis” (for many/for all) in the words of consecration?”  Benedict XVI has been very insistent that not only in the English language translations but in all the various language groups the words “pro multis” be translated literally so that the consecratory words over the chalice should say: “…the blood of the new and eternal covenant which is shed for you and for many” rather than “…for you and for all” as had been the custom with most vernacular translations since Vatican II.  (The equivalent translation had been in the Italian, Spanish, and German Missals among other vernacular translations.)  This translation was a sticking point for many who reject the Liturgy of Paul VI even though the official text, i.e. the Latin text, of the Missal says: “pro multis” (for many) rather than “for all.” 

It does make sense that the text should be translated literally if it is to be faithful to the scriptural words beneath and to the faith of the Church—but in this case the contrary is true.  While the Latin says “pro multis” (for many), the Latin itself is a translation from the Greek.  (The New Testament from which the words of consecration are drawn is written originally in Greek.)  And the Greek says “οί πολλοί” which means “the many.”  You see the problem is that Latin has no definite article—“the”—and so what is an inclusive idea in the Greek becomes an exclusive idea in the Latin.  When we say that Christ’s blood is shed for many it means that Christ died for many, not for all.  But the Greek New Testament means that his blood is shed for the many—the multitudes, the crowds, everybody.  (The French, by the way, got around this and translated it quite well: pour la multitude—for the multitude.) 

What further complicates the issue is that in the condemnation of Jansenism with the bull Cum Occasione by Innnocent X in 1653, one of the propositions condemned was the Jansenist claim that it was heretical to say that Christ died for all.  To the contrary—the Catholic Church teaches that Christ died for all.  Jansenism, like its Protestant cousin, Calvinism, held that God had predestined some to salvation and others to damnation and that Christ’s saving death applies only to those who are predestined to salvation.  Unfortunately, Pope Benedict’s insistence on the faulty translation of pro multis as “for many” undercuts the Catholic orthodoxy that makes it clear that the blood of Christ was shed for all.  The Pope, of course, believes in the teaching that Christ died for all, but his lack of pastoral experience leaves him blind to how this faulty translation will be used by those in the Church—and there are many among the neo-traditionalists—who are infected with Jansenism

I was recently talking with a young man who is now a student in a reputable Catholic seminary but whose family had long belonged to the sedevacantist group at Mount Saint Michael’s near Spokane Washington.  (The Sedevacantists reject the Second Vatican Council and believe that the last “true” Pope was Pius XII, the Vatican II era popes being ineligible for the Petrine Office because they have embraced the “heresies” of the Council.)  This gentleman explained to me the phenomenon of Jansenism sheltering among neo-traditionalists both within and separated from the Church. He said what drove him back into full communion with the Church after having been in sedevacantism for over twenty years was that so many of the people he knew in the movement “are just plain nasty.”  Mean-spiritedness is a characteristic of Jansenism as Jansenists tend to be very definite in the judgments about other people’s spiritual state.  This is what Jean Jacques Olier, the founder of the Sulpicians, said of the Jansenists: “They devour the heart of charity by which the Church lives.”  One can see this in many of the neo-traditionalist and Catholic neo-con websites from Michael Voris and his Church Militant TV to Mary Ann Kreitzer of Les Femmes to tantamergo—a blog for Dallas area Catholics and other sites like this that are very quick to tell you who are and who are not “good Catholics” without having any authority to make such evaluations. Jansenism is alive and well today in certain circles and one of the unintended consequences of this translation is that the Liturgy will nourish it as it opens to the door to the idea that there are those whom God loves and those whom God hates.  And what heresy is greater than the idea that God hates anyone, even the most vile sinner?            

The "New Translation" of the Mass III--More on the "Reform of the Reform"

A medieval illustration from the

Bibliothèque nationale de France

depicting a Requiem Mass being

celebrated ad apsidem (facing

the rear wall of the Church

I mentioned in the last post the “Reform of the Reform” school of liturgical renewal that feels that Paul VI went far too far in the Reform of the Roman Rite in the 1970 Missal and who have been advocating “correcting” the excesses of the Novus Ordo.  I also mentioned Father Joseph Fessio who as founder and president of Adoremus has been the chief American voice for the movement.  He is not the only advocate of the program, nor is his position on revising the current Rite even the most extreme.  Father Fessio may be a conservative and suffer from an exaggerated sense of his own importance, but he is both intelligent and highly educated.  Not all voices have such credibility.  I had mentioned Father Jerry Pokorsky from the Arlington Diocese.   He founded an organization called CREDO which has long agitated for revisions in the Novus Ordo including a more literal translation of the Latin texts.  Father Pokorsky holds an undergraduate degree in business and a seminary degree in theology.  A liturgical experience in his parish, Saint Michael’s in Annandale is, well to avoid the word eccentric, unique.  There is much razzle-dazzle, one could even say sacred glitter, but little substance in the way of sound liturgical spirituality.   One of  his partners in CREDO, Father Cornelius O’Brien often made pretense to a doctorate which in fact he had never completed.  Sermons by some of the CREDO priests in the diocese of Arlington are often otherworldly—not as in Divine or ethereal, but in the sense of “what planet is this priest from.”  Tales of spurious miracles and implausible hagiographic stories replace the scriptures in “thrill ‘em and chill ‘em” pulpit pyrotechnics.   Father Brian Harrison, an Australian priest who is a convert to Catholicism, received a doctorate from the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross but his tapes on biblical exegesis that contradicted the Pontifical Biblical Commission and attacked biblical scholarship since Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu have undermined, indeed destroyed, what little academic credibility he might otherwise have enjoyed.  All in all this is the problem with the Reform of the Reform—From Msgr. Gamber down to “Doctor” O’Brien, there is a lack of intellectual bottom to the movement.   Of course that is not to say that any of the other “schools” of liturgical renewal are any better.  Frankly, I wonder where the scholarship of the Jungmann’s and Dix’s and Deiss’s is today.  Where are the successors of  Odo Casel and Ildefons Herwegen and Lambert Beauduin? Frankly, there is grave need for ongoing renewal of the Roman Liturgy but it cannot be undertaken until a new generation of serious scholars, scholars that have credibility beyond the narrow and intellectually thin world of contemporary Catholic “Theology.” 
     Looking through the publications of various “Reform of the Reform” advocates we can see the movement’s agenda.  This is not to say that each and every voice of the movement subscribes to each and every point, but it does give us an overall view of what this particular group would like to see the Catholic Liturgy adopt.  
      What is the Reform of the Reform all about? 

1.    The priest and people facing the same direction in the liturgy
2.    The restriction of communion to one species for all but the celebrating priest
3.    The elimination of the sign of peace
4.    The restoration of kneeling for holy communion
5.    The administration of holy communion directly on the tongue
6.    The recitation of the Canon in Latin
7.    The translation of “pro multis” to be restrictive (for many) rather than inclusive (for all)
8.    The abolition of all other Eucharistic Prayers other than Prayer I—the “canon” of the Mass in the Tridentine Liturgy
9.    The use of two scripture readings at Sunday Mass rather than three
10.The elimination of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist at the liturgy
11.The exclusive use of men in liturgical ministries
12.The use of black or purple vestments for the funeral liturgy
13.The elimination of concelebration of the Liturgy
14.The use of “Roman” vestments –the “fiddleback” chasuable
15.The revival of suppressed or archaic customs such as the use of the maniple, the biretta, and, for prelates, the cappa magna.
     The 2000 Third Edition of the Roman Missal addressed none of these issues.  The new translation—at the insistence of Pope Benedict—does translate the “pro multis” as “for many,” but other than that doesn’t  address the “Reform of the Reform” agenda.  I don’t mean to say that the “new” missal isn’t problematic, even a step backwards, but it isn’t a threat to the substantial revisions made in the Liturgy after the Second Vatican Council.  What is a threat is what happens in many parishes where priests on their own authority begin to turn back the clock, withdrawing the chalice from the laity, eliminating the sign of peace, closing liturgical ministries to girls and women.     

Speaking of German Reform Popes: Let's Look at Ours

Benedict XVI appearing

on the Balcony of Saint

Peter's immediatetely after

his election

We have been talking about German Reform popes in the eleventh century—Leo IX, Clement II, Damasus II, and we will shortly take a passing look at Gebhard of Calw (or actually Gebhard Graf (C0unt) von Calw, Tollenstein und Hirschberg who reigned as Victor II from 1055-1057.  Let’s jump to the present and look at our current German Reform Pope. 
     When Josef Ratzinger was elected to the papacy as Benedict XVI, there had been much talk that he didn’t want the papacy, but frankly , to paraphrase Shakespeare, The pope doth protest too much, methinks.  I was living in Rome and at the time of the death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict and my historical background led to being hired as a consultant to several international teams of journalists covering the events.  Frankly it is very difficult for me to believe that Josef Ratzinger did not do everything canonically in his power to secure his election to the Holy See.  I emphasize canonically: he played hardball but he played within the rules.  In fact, he made the rules work for him. 
     In the first place, Cardinal Ratzinger was the Dean of the Sacred College at the time of the death of John Paul and the subsequent conclave.  While it is not usual for the Dean to be elected Pope (the time previous to the election of Cardinal Ratzinger was the 1555 election of Paul IV), in the electoral process the Dean is the most powerful of the Cardinals.  Several of the ceremonial duties previously assigned to the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church were transferred to the Dean by the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis of John Paul II in 1996.  This increased the visibility and the authority of the Dean in the interregnum.  The Dean is the public face of the Church during the papal vacancy.  It is the Dean’s duty to summon the conclave and to chair the daily meetings of the Cardinals during the period of sede vacante.  While for centuries the Dean was traditionally the longest serving Cardinal-Bishop, Paul VI changed this practice in 1965 empowering the Cardinal Bishops to select the one of their number they wished to hold this office.  In 2001 at the urging of John Paul, the Cardinal Bishops selected Josef Ratzinger for this position.  Ratzinger had been named to the Sacred College by Paul VI in 1977 and 1993 he was elevated within the College to the rank of Cardinal Bishop making him eligible for the Deanery.  Named vice-Dean in 1998, he was made Dean in 2002 upon the retirement of Bernardin Gantin. 
     During the period of sede vacante in 2005 Josef Ratzinger kept a very high profile.  He called on the other Cardinals to take an oath of silence, not speaking to the press or giving interviews during the interregnum, but he himself released a new book during the week between the funeral of John Paul and the conclave, bringing considerable attention to himself while the other Cardinals remained in the background.  Of course, since the election process was confined to members of the College of Cardinals, such a publicity move had little effect on the subsequent election.  Nevertheless, it was one of several events that week the kept his name in the forefront.  As Dean, Cardinal Ratzinger had the responsibility of preaching both at the funeral of John Paul and the opening of the conclave.  He preached a remarkably fine funeral homily for the dead pope, but it was the opening homily of the conclave that is really worth noting.  On the Saturday evening before the conclave opened, April 16, Cardinal Walter Kasper preached a homily at the Church of Santa Maria in Trastevere.  This Mass always draws a crowd as it is the weekly Eucharist for the Sant’Egidio Community, a fellowship of committed Catholics who do outstanding work on behalf of the poor in Rome and throughout the world.  The Community numbers many bishops and Cardinals among its friends and customarily invites a distinguished prelate to preach at its Saturday evening liturgy. 
     Cardinal Kasper supposedly was one of several German and American Cardinals anxious to find an alternative candidate to Ratzinger for the papacy.  Ratzinger was the acknowledged front runner, but there was a significant block in the Sacred College that did not want to see him elected fearing that his ideas, particularly on ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, and liturgical reforms—three very important areas of Vatican II Reform—would reverse much of the renewal accomplished in the four decades since the Council.  It was Good Shepherd Sunday and Cardinal Kasper preached a very pointed sermon on the qualities of the Shepherd needed by the universal Church.  It was never said, of course, that Cardinal Ratzinger was not the man who fit Kasper’s bill, but it was clear that the Church needed a pope who would advance the agenda set by the Council in ways that did not match the ideology of Cardinal Ratzinger.   Kasper’s audience was not large—perhaps seven or eight hundred people.  His text was not, to my knowledge, published.  There were probably very few who heard his homily who were also present for Cardinal Ratzinger’s homily at the opening Mass of the Conclave on Monday, April 18^th.  Cardinal Ratinger gave a point by point rebuttal of the Kasper homily.  This may have been a coincidence; it may even have been divine inspiration.  Whatever the inspiration, Cardinal Ratzinger did a remarkable job in laying aside any fears that one might still have had that his papacy would not carry out the projects of the Second Vatican Council.  Having heard both homilies I would say that Ratzinger was the more skillful preacher; Kasper the prophet. 
      I do not mean to imply in this posting that Cardinal Ratzinger was in any way personally ambitious for the papacy.  I do not believe that he was.  The papacy is not fun.  It is long days, no  hope of retirement, confined—in a palace—but confined none the less. it meant and end to his every-day post luncheon walk through the Borgo and Prati districts; no longer would he go to his favorite German Restaurant just outside the Vatican walls. Being pope requires virtual separation from family, from friends, from the normal joys of human relationships.  It is life under the microscope of public opinion and while you will always have your fans, you will have your detractors as well.  
     I think Cardinal Ratzinger was genuinely concerned about some directions the Church had taken in the years since the Council—directions he once had advocated but now thought better of—directions he questioned even under the conservative John Paul II.  Ratzinger clearly thought, and seemingly still does think, that his predecessor had gone way too far on matters of interreligious dialogue.  Both towards Islam and towards Eastern Religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, John Paul’s cordiality and lack of rigid adherence to Vatican policy on no shared “prayer” with those outside the Abrahamic faiths has been troubling to many, not least Josef Ratzinger.  John Paul also had somewhat muddied the waters between “Churches” and “Ecclesial Communities,” welcoming Anglican and Lutheran Bishops (whose Apostolic Orders are not recognized by the Catholic Church) with the same protocols accorded to Orthodox prelates whose Orders the Catholic Church recognizes.  For example, at various ceremonies such as the opening of the Holy Door for the Jubilee year of 2000, John Paul was flanked by the representative of the Patriarch of Constantinople on one side and the Archbishop of Canterbury on the other. Even before assuming the papacy, at the funeral of John Paul, Cardinal Ratzinger as Dean made subtle changes in the protocol of how the various prelates were ranked.  Most significant, I think, was Cardinal Ratzinger’s determination that the Novus Ordo of Paul VI was seriously (though certainly not fatally) flawed.  He is well known for his opposition to translating pro vobis et pro multis (literally “for you and for many”) as “for you and for all.”  This is one of the “corrections,” actually the premier correction, in the new translation coming out this autumn for our English speakers.  He has written extensively on the subject of the priest taking an ad orientem position at the altar; that is the priest facing eastwards which in a traditionally oriented church (a church with the altar at the east end) would place the priest with his back to the people.  (This is a very complex issue both historically and theologically.)    Benedict has been much in favor of restoring usage of the pre-conciliar rite, initially as an alternative to the Missal of Paul VI, but eventually using the elements of the traditional rite to restore to the Rite of Paul VI a continuity with the Tridentine Rite that Benedict and others believe was broken by the Missal of 1970.  Benedict has been a frequent visitor to the Tridentine abbey of Fontgombault and has spoken at its conferences on the pre-conciliar rite.  While the Pope himself has not yet celebrated the Traditional Rite, at least publically, he has widely expanded its use even usurping the authority of the local bishop to govern the pastoral practices in his diocese.  I think that Benedict sees these steps as Reform—or as it is often called The Reform of the Reform.  Others see it as a reneging on the Reforms of the Second Vatican Council.  How history will see it—as Reform or backing away from Reform is anyone’s guess.  Probably more important a gauge of Reform than matters of liturgical translation or positioning, is getting at the root issues of how power and authority are exercised in the Church.  Will Benedict get to the abuses of power that encouraged bishops to cover up the sex-abuse crisis?  Will Benedict mandate fiscal transparency in the Church?  Will Benedict introduce structures of accountability?  And, perhaps most crucial, while the Pope certainly has the authority, does he have the power to effect needed structural reforms or has the power already fallen into others’ hands?  Benedict is the White Pope, but is there are Black Pope (or more likely a Scarlet Pope) lurking behind his throne and forcing his hand?      Hmmmm.  Politics and Intrigue have long trumped the Gospel in the shadowy corridors of the Vatican.