Giovanni Pietro Caraffa, otherwise known as Pope Paul VI, did the churches of this Kingdom of England no favours.
When Queen Mary I, and Reginald Cardinal Pole, both died, the former was in state of war with the Pope, and the latter was stripped of his legatine powers and summoned to Rome on charges of heresy. Caraffa appears to have referred to Pole's "Lutheran household"; the jolly little 1958 CTS pamphlet THE POPES From St Peter to Pius XII, usually a trifle nervous about being too critical of those who have occupied the papal throne, summarises his "ferocious character. He was actuated by a violent hatred of Spanish influence in Italy and an over-mastering dread of concessions to the Reformers".
It is argued that Bloody Bess, "Elizabeth I", found it all the easier to subject this poor Kingdom again to heresy because Caraffa, deliberately, had left so many English sees unfilled.
Caraffa himself died in August of the following year, 1559, when news was beginning spread of Elizabeth's deprivations of surviving members of the clergy left in place by Good Queen Mary. But not before he had promulgated a Feast of the Cathedra of S Peter at Rome for January 18. The point of this commemoration was obvious, you may feel, in the context of Caraffa's character and politics.
But there is, I am sure, a lesson for us here; especially for troubled souls inclined to sedevacantism by aspects of the current pontificate. Yes; things are bad, but they have been bad before. Neither that, nor anything else, can change the fact the George Bergoglio is truly and lawfully the Successor of S Peter.
The 'reformers' of the Pacellian period, needless to say, suppressed the Feast of January 18 (but before the Council: so don't blame the Conciliar 'fathers') on the grounds that it wickedly duplicates the Feast in February of S Peter's Cathedra in Antioch.
But I value Caraffa's January Feast of S Peter's Cathedra at Rome as a valuable reminder of the status of iffy popes, and of our dutiful obligation to accept with humility the reality of their pontificates.
22 comments:
Paul IV, surely?
Gian Pietro Carafa – Paul IV :)
Paul IV, I suppose.
Beg your pardon, Sir, but to the best of my knowledge Cardinal Caraffa became Pope Paul IV (the fourth)
Beg your pardon, Sir, but to the best of my knowledge cardinal Caraffa became Pope Paul IV (fourth).
(if it is redundant just delete it)
Similarly, Urban VI counts as a validly elected pope despite being a tyrant and a homicidal psychopath (and notwithstanding the fact that adherents of the rival Avignon line such as St Vincent Ferrer have been raised to the altars).
Whatever one thinks of the present incumbent, at least, unlike Urban, he hasn't had any cardinals tortured to death in the dungeons without trial.
Dear Fr. Hunwicke.
The “Typo Demons” have struck, again. One assumes that you meant “Pope Paul IV, and not Pope Paul VI” ?
A typographical error: Paul "IV"
I'm sure I won't be the first to point out that you've accidentally swapped the 'V' and the 'I' in the Pope's regnal number. While most of us who read your excellent blog will agree that Paul VI was indeed a pretty terrible pope, he's not the subject of this post!
Paul IV, surely? Paul VI was Giovanni Battista Montini...
Pope Paul IV, I think, rather than the Pope of recent memory whose coat of arms used to adorn Tesco's Chateauneuf du Pape.
Pope Paul IV., Father.
Pope Paul VI?
Otherwise, thanks for the bittersweet reminder…
In a spirit of selflessness, scores
Bravely risked themselves being judged bores
By their ardour to signal
A numerico-regnal
Substitution of sixes for fours.
In loose modern parlance, it may be accurate to refer to PF as "truly and lawfully" Pope, but might it just be more accurate to say that, usurper or not, he became pope, and nobody respectable seems to think that he has lost what he gained in whatever manner he gained it? It's the same thing, maybe, but I think that its a little better to be completely accurate.
When it came to the liturgy Paul VI did not exactly have "an over-mastering dread of concessions to the Reformers".
My first reaction was to assume you actually meant the recent Pope Paul and I found myself agreeing with your sentiment! Then I realised that this wasn't his surname. Perhaps, what we nowadays term a 'Freudian slip'?
Seems I'm not the only one paying attention, dear Father. How gratifying.
Two things made the Elizabethan "settlement" much easier for her: Pius IV and the influenza pandemic of 1557 that hit England especially hard in the colder months of late 1558 into 1559 that felled a lot of Catholic statesmen and churchmen.
I wonder if you Fr were making a comment about our most recent Pope (sainted by dear Pope Pope Francis) Paul who despite his hair shirt wearing personal piety, destroyed Catholic devotional life for so many with the New Mass and an Office that virtually no one says publicly. Old missals has Vespers and Compline. Having that in a New Mass missal would be vanity.
Brilliant!
Well said!
Post a Comment