Posted on 08/12/2005 10:29:56 AM PDT by NYer
When Benedict was elected pope, a new word was instantly coined on the Internet by Catholics delighted over his election: Ratzenfreude.
Unreality on the Right and the Left Carping Conservatives We Don't Want a Teacher, We Want a Warrior King! Pope Benedict is Not the One on Trial
I must confess I indulged in a bit of Ratzenfreude myself. It was hard not to as the Usual Suspects in the Media shrieked that he was a Nazi and emitted the usual blah blah about our need to remain faithful to the teachings of the Third Vatican Council which will soon make abortion a sacrament and guarantee God's blessing on whatever it is Americans want to do with our groins today.
But at the same time, I was aware that, precisely because the media portrayals of Pope Benedict were so unrealistic, there was a danger that even the people who were delighted with his election were delighted for unrealistic reasons as well. The more I listened to Internet chatter, the more it seemed to me that many conservative Catholics assumed he would apply the full might of the papal office to the task of rooting out all the Bad Catholics and sending them packing. Hopes began to rise among conservatives (just as terrors were rising on the Left) that he was at long last going to inaugurate the show trials, purges and excommunications. The Church was about to pass through the Great Benedictine Cleansing Fire!
This seemed to me as wildly unrealistic as the hysterical notions on the Left that Benedict was the enemy of democracy who wants homosexuals stoned to death, women barefoot and pregnant, and Protestants burnt at the stake. As the gleeful hope for The Purge continued to rise on the Right, I made a prediction on an Internet forum to the effect that, within six months, many of those cheering Benedict's election would be complaining about his failure to be Der PanzerPapa.
I was wrong. It only took about two weeks.
Conservative critics on Internet fora whose sense of failure, doom, and despair sustains them through moments of hope and happiness soon began to sniff that, "Many of us have greatly lowered our expectations of this pope."
Benedict's crimes? Among other things, "He's participated in... which were much less than what traditionalists expected from a Ratzinger papacy. Contemporary hymns, flutes, oboes, etc." More terrible still, "Doing away with the papal tiara on his coat of arms was another unpleasant shock of this new pontificate." Worst of all, there is the sin of imitating Pope John Paul with "a trip to a synagogue added to his itinerary for World Youth Day in Germany, excessive emphasis on ecumenism, even down to simple things like continuing to wear the same vestments at all papal functions that John Paul II wore. Popes always had their own new set of liturgical vestments. This made it all very disappointing."
Now one of the common polemical boasts of conservative Catholics (when Protestants are in the room) is that Catholics have a universal shepherd and teacher, while Protestants are "scattered sheep." We have (it is boasted at Protestants) this glorious treasure of a Petrine teaching office given us by Christ Himself.
But when Protestants leave the room, it is stunning how often the very conservative Catholics who make such boasts seem to be singularly bent on complaining about where the shepherd is leading and what the teacher is teaching. The author of Dominus Iesus is condemned for engaging in ecumenism (frequently with tired and ignorant claims that this is equal to indifferentism). He is scolded for supporting Jews in an increasingly anti-semitic Europe.
His conservative critics (so recently shouting "Hosanna" at his election) don't seem to be interested in what the pope teaches. They appear to long instead for him to finally fulfil the pre-Christian Messianic dream of a Davidic Warrior King who will establish righteousness by force. They are impatient for Benedict to kick out the Bad People and create a Pure Church. They roll their eyes when he lives out wimpy drivel like charity, gentleness, and respect for non-Catholics (a.k.a. "excessive ecumenism"). Warrior Kings don't dialogue! They conquer and rule! That's why the departure of Thomas Reese from America caused such glee on the Right. It was, some hoped, the First Fruits of the Long-Hoped-For Purge!
Except that it wasn't. Reese resigned: he wasn't fired. There was no General Order from Rome calling for the roundup and execution of Undesirables in Catholic media. For Benedict is not going to fulfil either that fantasy or many others. So people like the critic quoted above are disappointed. Instead of ruling o'er time and space with an iron fist, Benedict talks to Jews! He labors at "excessive ecumenism" instead of telling the Protestants, "Go to hell! We don't need you." He is not about Power.
I can't help but think that, for those who regard the pope as a flag — not as a shepherd or teacher in any living sense — this will continue to constitute an increasingly sore trial. I hope such folk pass it. For it is they who are being tried, not Benedict.
You are a constant source of inspiration! And usually nail it right on the head. Thank you for the feedback.
Thank you, NYer, I enjoy your articles and comments. Unfortunately, I don't have a link.
Look at the thread on May 13th to may 15th, I dont have the energy or inclanation to find the exact link. But needless to say, whatever respect I had for Mr Shea vanished. Again, he is to authenic Catholicism what the likes of Bill Kristol and the Weekely Standard is to Conservatism.
Dear SaltyJoe,
Good post.
If we're going to kick the Bad People out,... I guess I gotta go, too.
:-(
sitetest
St. Matthew Chapter 5 is a total condemnation of the Rabbinic viewpoint. Our Lord Jesus shows how they had utterly twisted the true conceptions of the Law with their man-made interpretations that nullified the Law's actual intent.
This condemnation is increased in force as St. Matthew continues his narrative, as is clear to anyone with the ability to read Chapters 15 and 23.
If Rabbinic Judaism only came after the destruction of the Temple, how come then people called Jesus "Rabbi" (cf. St John 20.16, etc.), and how did he come to preach in Synagouges (St. Luke 4.15-21) that held services which are described in a form an Orthodox Jew stepping out of modern New York or Tel-Aviv would recognize and could probably immediately join? Modern Rabbinic Judaism was already then extent.
Galilee was a frontier region for the Hasmonean government. It may be speculated that Joseph was a native of of means
If St. Joseph was from Bethlehem (St. Luke 2.3), which he obviously was if we believe the Gospels and Prophets, he could hardly be from Galilee. In fact, it took a dream to convince St. Joseph to give up settling with his little family in his native Judea and move to Galilee (St. Matthew 2.22)
In any case, Mary was a woman of Israel, otherwise Jesus was not a Jew, which is, of course what you choose to believe.
Jesus was not a Jew, since he was not from Judea. Rather, all through the Gospels we read about how the Jews were trying to kill Him. Mary was a woman of Israel and of probable mixed ancestory since she was from Galilee of the Gentiles, where the Israelites had been promiscuously mixed with the Gentiles (Hosea 8.8) to the point where the Talmud rejects them as Jews.
It is strange therefore that he limited his ministry to the Jews, with the exception of his mission into Samaria.
No, Jesus preached all over the region, also going to the area of Tyre and Sidon, spending much time in Galilee itself, and going across the Jordan.
His ministry was not to the Jews, but to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel". The "House of Israel" of course being the so-called Ten Lost Tribes, since the Jews were the "House of Judea" and were not lost at all. Of course, this was not a measure of exclusivity at all. Among his Apostles was Simon the Cananean, and he certainly ministered to many Gentiles once they demonstrated their faith to Him. How could He not, since the Prophecies He had inspired in Isaiah foretold exactly that?
He did say that salvation is from the Jews, unless you are trying to spin that as an ironical statement.
Meaning salvation is from the faithful of Israel, who were given the divine message of God's revelation and the blessings and entrusted to pass it down for all men. But temember "For he is not a Jew who is so outwardly in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is so inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart in the spirit, not in the letter." (Romans 2.28-29). And also be not taken in "by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2.9) seeing as they have not Abraham, but the Devil for their Father (St. John 8.42-44), even though Jesus acknowledges are genetic children of Abraham (St. John 8.37).
Also remember, as St. John Chrysostom notes in his commentary here, he is not speaking of who He is, but of who the woman thinks He is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.