In conversation with a gentleman after Mass yesterday, I was astonished  that anyone would give any credence to the ridiculous notion of an “expanded papacy”, as described in an interview with Archbishop Gänswein, so I dismissed this very pleasant gentleman’s worries.  In fact, I considered it so ridiculous when first reported, that I discounted the idea of publishing a thread on the topic. By chance, then, although there’s no such thing, really, I came across Fr Ray Blake’s blog on the subject and could not believe that he sees this (unless I’m misunderstanding him) as a development of the papal office. He is widely regarded across the internet as an “orthodox” if not quite “traditional” priest. Read his two posts below on the subject, copied here for ease of reference, and then tell me if I’ve gotten hold of the wrong end of the keyring – because, it seems clear to me and to moi, that “Thou art Peter” means what Christ said: “Thou are Peter, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind (and loose) on earth shall be … in Heaven” (Matthew: 16:18ff) 

It’s certainly true that one thing is “expanding” – the novelty list; the New Mass, New Rosary, New Catechism, New Canon Law, New Canonisations, New Morality, New Dogma of Infallibility, and now a New Papal Office –  apologies if I’ve omitted anything – I should be elsewhere even as I hastily type this, so feel free to add any novelties I’ve overlooked in my haste – but now, to Fr Ray Blake’s articles…

His resignation has changed the Papacy, more than any other event could have done. It has ‘de-mystified’ it. It has taken away the sense that the Pope is in some sense a sacred person, rather than a human being, brilliant or otherwise, fulfilling a sacred role.

Expanding Papacy Part 1                        

Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s recent remarks are always interesting, his recent interview is of particular interest. Gänswein, like his master Pope Benedict, is a subtle creature and should not be underestimated. I have always admired Ratzinger, especially as over the years his thought has developed.It is unlikely that Gänswein speaks with out Ratzinger knowing what he will say. 

It is fascinating what Gänswein says about the two rival groups before the last Conclave, it is also fascinating what he leaves us to speculate about the election of Pope Francis in the light of these rival factions.

People have been pondering what the Archbishop meant by an ‘expanded Papacy’. I think that we need to start with Pope John Paul’s Et in Unum Sint  88ff – a document which seems to be as much the work of Cardinal-Prefect Ratzinger, as Pope Wojtyła. It recognises the role of the Pope today. it goes beyond the teaching of Vatican One’s Pastor Aeternus, where the Pope is seen as the locus of the authentic Church, and the ultimate judge, or rather definer. of where authentic Christianity ends and heresy begins. It is role well suited to a non-travelling Pope, with a limited staff, whose concern was essentially doctrinal, with a Secretariate of State, whose role was essentially concerned with relationships Catholic princes, and few other Cardinal’s with a tiny staff who held particular offices.

Mass communications above all have changed the role of the Papacy, today he is no longer the prisoner of the Vatican. We are more likely to be familiar with the image, actions and words of the Bishop of Rome than we are with our own Bishops. The Pope is no longer ‘just for Catholics’, he has another role, that of pre-eminence not only among Christians but among ‘faith leaders’ too. As a ‘world leader’ he has a moral authority which goes beyond that of any other leader.  He is also the head of one of the largest and most active NGO in the world.

I think Benedict has always wanted to reform the Papacy, it is not unconnected with his attempt to reform the Liturgy. His writings recognise the rootlessness both in scholarship and tradition of Paul VI’s liturgical reforms, which rather than being a popular movement was something imposed from above through Papal authority. Vatican II, I am sure he welcomes but he has spoken and written about the Council of the Documents and the Council of Media. He has spoken of course of two hermeneutics, of rupture and continuity. Most especially in regard to the liturgy the Papacy itself has been the source of the hermeneutic of rupture, a rupture in the liturgy would for Benedict be a rupture in the entire fabric of the Church.

My personal feeling is the Archbishop is right that neither Vatileaks or conspiracies were responsible for Benedict’s resignation, his devotion to Pope Celestine, his his symbolic leaving of his pallium on his shrine happened as early as April 2009, in retrospect it was an obvious sign of his intention to resign. I am sure his increased tiredness and difficulty in walking hastened it somewhat.

His resignation has changed the Papacy, more than any other event could have done. It has ‘de-mystified’ it. It has taken away the sense that the Pope is in some sense a sacred person, rather than a human being, brilliant or otherwise, fulfilling a sacred role. It strikes me as being highly unlikely that Pope Benedict was blind and deaf to “the so-called St. Gallen group” that included “Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor”, what is perhaps interesting is that the Archbishop should mention them by name, and it is unlikely that he was unaware of who was their preferred candidate and where he would take the Papacy.

So what are we to make of the idea of an ‘expanded’ papacy? I cannot help see that it is significant that in the light of Amoris Laetitia and the confusion that it has created that Archbishop Gänswein should point out that the Pope Emeritus is still alive and able to comment, albeit by his choice through the Archbishop. The ‘expanded papacy’ is presumably a reference to the fact that as long as Benedict is alive Pope Francis has to take his legacy into account. In the past once a Pope was safely in his grave his successor had the freedom to make use of his predecessor’s legacy as he wished, this is not an option for Francis. Benedict still has the capacity to cry out from his cloister, as we have seen recently over a misrepresentation of his words about Fatima.

Gänswein, by this speech has rather clearly shown himself to be one of the chief custodians and defenders of the Ratzingarian legacy. It is not by chance that he reminded the world that Ratzinger was elected after his sermon on the evils of Relativism. Perhaps when Pope Benedict is dead we will see what those who keep legacy which has perhaps grown rather and will grow rather than fade, will do and are capable of doing.

Posted by Fr Ray Blake    Source     

With a chatterbox former-Pope giving daily interviews with Scalfari or some other journalist of choice, or just picking up the phone and sharing his ideas with anyone in the world he wants to – well this produces a very interesting slant on an ‘expanded papacy’. Not only will the Cardinals in the future be electing a Pope but also someone who might in just a few years become an ex-Pope.

Expanding Papacy Part 2 

I am sure Archbishop Ganswein used the term ‘expanding papacy’ to mean simply a changing or developing papacy: de facto the Papacy has changed since the First Vatican Council. De facto Pope Benedict’s resignation was the key change. Ganswein describes Benedict as homo historicus, quite what he means I don’t know but Benedict has the clarity of vision to see what is likely to happen in the future. I am sure he expected the St Gall mafia’s candidate to be elected. I am sure he understood the inevitable confusion that would result. I am sure he would look beyond his papacy to the next and beyond. One of the principles that seems to be at the basis of Benedict’s thought is that truth will triumph, because Christ is truth.

Benedict has introduced the idea of a Pope not dying in office, he himself promising obedience retired to a Vatican monastery and has rarely broken his silence. The important question is not what Benedict will do but what would Francis do if retired or was forced from office. Presumably he would not retire to life of prayer but probably become a curate in some poor South American parish, would he remain quiet? It is highly unlikely, and probably impossible for him.  

With a chatterbox former-Pope giving daily interviews with Scalfari or some other journalist of choice, or just picking up the phone and sharing his ideas with anyone in the world he wants to – well this produces a very interesting slant on an ‘expanded papacy’. Not only will the Cardinals in the future be electing a Pope but also someone who might in just a few years become an ex-Pope.

John Paul set down strict rules about forbidding lobbying amongst Cardinals, human nature would suggest this unreasonable. I am sure wherever two are three Cardinals are gathered, and they have kicked their shoes off they start talking about who is likely to be the next Pope, and who is likely to vote for who. For the good of the Church it would be irresponsible not to do so. In the same way I am sure any conversation between Cardinal is a bit like a job interview – with the under-riding idea of will this man be a suitable next Pope.

I think one of the things that could well develop is a fixed term papacy, an expectation that the Pope will retire after five or six years or when he has reached 80 or 85 he will become a former-Pope. Would it be possible that with two or three pope’s emeritus around they develop a particular role, as advisers to the reigning Pope? I rather like the idea of retired Popes Home with popes  in vary states decrepitude eager to advise their successor, whilst they scheme and skype friends in the media, some maybe doing an occasional television interview or ‘going viral’ on the net.

Posted by Fr Ray Blake  Source

Comments invited…