There is a ton of analysis out there on BXVI, being that he was already a well known figure before he assumed the papacy, which is unusual in itself. Here is a little snippet from an interview of religion writer David Van Biema on TIME.com., that suggests that this Pope is not fearful of losing members over questions of doctrinal purity.:
He (BXVI) has previously indicated that he would be comfortable with an extremely small Church, preferring a small church of true believers to a larger one whose numbers are swelled by people he would not see as good Catholics. Benedict XVI has previously argued that it is not unhealthy for church to be a counter culture rather than a dominant player in secular Western society.
Gee, I always wanted to be "counter-cultural". It appeals to my internal hippy. I have always said that if Natural Family Planning had been invented by a ponytailed professor in the ’60s, it would be all the rage. Hey, man, no chemicals, no artificial anything. Just you and your soul-mate doing what comes naturally.
Pardon my suspicions, but I have them concerning MSM paraphrases of uncited statements made by His Holiness. I have them doubly when the statement is made by someone who feels the need to point out that the CDF used to be the Inquisition.
There is a ton of analysis out there on BXVI, being that he was already a well known figure before he assumed the papacy, which is unusual in itself.
Is this really all that unusual? Pius XII, for example, was a well-known figure prior to his election to the Papacy (he had even visited the United States in 1936 when he was Pius XI’s Secretary of State). It seems that perhaps most of the XXth-century Popes were not well-known, but I am guessing that prior to the expansion of the Sacred College many Popes were well-known before their election, or at least as well-known as one might be prior to the information age.
DCS, not only was Pacelli well known before he became Pius XII, but Paul VI/Montini was well known and assumed to be Pius XII’s successor. He might well have been but he turned down being made cardinal when it was first offered.
Pope John Paul II was a surprise of course at that is the last new Pope most people remember
Is there any evidence for the claim that then-Archbishop Montini was offered the red hat by Pius XII but turned it down? If true, why then did he accept it when it was offered by Bl. John XXIII?
I’m interested in the small church comments also. I actually like them. Does some one have a reference to an actual work by the Pope.
Well, he’s getting better known.
Gee, now I will have to dig around at the library when I get a chance. This has been soemthing I thought I knew for years. I remembered as having something to do with Montini’s indecisiveness.
However, quickly Googling the issue I see all sorts of other dark theories.
dcs — Owen Chadwick, at the end of his book on “Britain and the Vatican” during WW2, p 304, notes that Montini turned down the cardinal’s hat . . . so did another key advisor of P12’s during the war, Tardini. He doesn’t say why, tho he does note that P12 didn’t order them to take the hat, as he could have.
This is my own reflection on why he might have turned it down:
if he became a cardinal he would have become the leading candidate to succeed P12 and he didn’t want to be pope.