Pope Benedict has announced his resignation from the papacy. What popes have done this before, and how has it changed the Church?
In the wake of Pope Benedict’s announcement that he is resigning from the papacy, I thought I would speak with the historian Dr. Andrew Jones about the history of papal resignations.
While it hasn’t happened often in history, there have been popes who have resigned before, and their resignations (technically, their renunciations of the papacy) have left a lasting impact on Church history.
There are also some fascinating cases where we aren’t quite sure what happened.
In this episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast, Dr. Jones and I begin to go through the cases, explaining what happened, what we know, and what impact the papal resignations have had.
First of two parts.
Here are links to the web sites mentioned in the show:
Paul was converted when Christ appeared to him. What should you know about St. Paul and his conversion?
This Friday, the Church celebrates the conversion of St. Paul.
Here are eight things you need to know about him–and his conversion.
1. Where was St. Paul from?
In Acts 21:39, St. Paul states:
“I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city.”
Tarsus was the capital city of the Roman province of Cilicia. This is on the southeast coast of modern Turkey, so St. Paul was not from the holy land. He was actually a Jew born in what is now Turkey.
It was a port city and a noted commercial center. For these reasons, and because it was the capital, he can describe it as “no mean city” (that is, no common, ordinary city). It was famous.
One of the things it was famous for was being the place where Mark Anthony first met Cleopatra, after which they embarked on their doomed alliance.
Tarsus survives today as the city of Mersin, Turkey.
In Jerusalem. In Acts 22:3, Paul gives a bit more information about his background:
“I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as you all are this day.”
Gamaliel was a famous Jewish teacher. So famous, in fact, that we know about him today from Jewish sources.
Gamaliel is also mentioned in Acts, where he takes an open-minded view of Christianity, urging that it not be persecuted (Acts 5:34-42). Paul did not agree with him at this time, because this was before Paul’s great persecution of the Church, as well as before his conversion.
Mary and Joseph knew the agony of having a missing child. What are we to make of this mysterious incident, and what does it tell us about Jesus' future?
This Sunday we celebrate the mystery of the Holy Family.
What was it like for Jesus, Mary, and Joseph to live together?
Each is a very remarkable person! Put all three together and . . . wow.
Today we have reality shows about interesting and extraordinary families, but they didn’t have reality shows back then.
Fortunately, we are given a glimpse into the domestic life of the Holy Family.
And it’s a glimpse provided by the Virgin Mary herself . . .
Missing Child!
This episode in the life of the Holy Family begins on a holiday: specifically, the feast of Passover.
Luke records that the Holy Family went up to Jerusalem each year for the feast of Passover, apparently in a company of “their kinsfolk and acquaintances,” and when Jesus was twelve, he stayed behind in Jerusalem.
Joseph and Mary did not realize this until they had already gone “a day’s journey” back to Nazareth, at which point they realized he was not with the company.
They thus began to experience the agony and anxiety of parents who discover their child is missing.
And note the foreshadowing: Was there ever another time in Jesus life, at Passover, in Jerusalem, when Mary would be deprived of Jesus?
“On the Third Day”
Joseph and Mary thus return to Jerusalem and “after three days” find him.
The three days, in this case, are apparently:
the first day spent journeying from Jerusalem,
a second day spend journeying back to Jerusalem,
and the third day (or part of a third day) searching for him in Jerusalem.
Again, note the foreshadowing: The three days echo the three days (or, more precisely, parts of three days) that Jesus spent in the tomb, during which Mary and the disciples were deprived of Jesus’ presence but then found him again “on the third day” (cf. Lk. 9:22).
Matthew records that Herod the Great slaughtered the holy innocents in his efforts to kill Jesus. Did this even actually happen?
On December 28, the Church commemorates the slaughter of the holy innocents.
These are the baby boys in Bethlehem that Herod the Great had slaughtered in an attempt to kill the Baby Jesus.
But many people today challenge the idea that this ever took place.
“We have no record of it!” they say.
Actually, we do . . .
Who Was Herod the Great?
Herod the Great was the king of Judea at the time Jesus was born.
He had the title “king,” but he was not an independent ruler. Instead, he was a client king of the Roman empire who had been named “King of the Jews” by the Roman Senate.
This meant that he was a local ruler who ultimately answered to Rome and who owed his throne to the Roman Senate.
Religiously, Herod was a Jew, but ethnically, he was descended from a neighboring people, the Idumeans. They had been forcibly converted to Judaism in the time of the Maccabees (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13:9:1).
As a ruler, he built a lot of things–fortresses, aqueducts, theaters, etc. Undertaking major public works projects was one of the ways that rulers in the ancient world built a legacy for themselves.
His most famous building projects was the Temple in Jerusalem, which he began dramatically expanding.
Many parishes will have the "Christmas Proclamation" before Midnight Mass. What is this proclamation and how can we understand what it says about when Jesus was born?
If you attended Mass on Christmas Eve, you may have heard the “Christmas proclamation.”
This is a beautiful, poetic announcement of the birth of Christ.
It says when Jesus was born, dating it from nine different events.
But the ways that they dated events in the ancient world are different than the ones we use today.
Here’s how you can understand the Christmas proclamation when you hear it read . . .
About the Christmas Proclamation
Scott Richert notes:
This Proclamation of the Birth of Christ comes from the Roman Martyrology, the official listing of the saints celebrated by the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Traditionally, it has been read on Christmas Eve, before the celebration of Midnight Mass. It situates the Nativity of Christ within the context of salvation history, making reference not only to biblical events but also to the Greek and Roman worlds. The coming of Christ at Christmas, then, is seen as the summit of both sacred and secular history.
In the 1980’s, Pope John Paul II restored the Proclamation of the Birth of Christ to the papal celebration of Midnight Mass. (It had been removed during the reform of the liturgy.) Many parishes have followed the Holy Father’s lead [SOURCE].
The rubrics for the Christmas proclamation state:
The announcement of the Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord from the Roman Martyrology draws upon Sacred Scripture to declare in a formal way the birth of Christ. It begins with creation and relates the birth of the Lord to the major events and personages of sacred and secular history. The particular events contained in the announcement help pastorally to situate the birth of Jesus in the context of salvation history.
This text, The Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be chanted or recited, most appropriately on December 24, during the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours. It may also be chanted or recited before the beginning of Christmas Mass during the Night. It may not replace any part of the Mass.
The Proclamation Begins
The proclamation begins by solemnly announcing the day on which the birth of Christ is traditionally celebrated:
The Twenty-fifth Day of December
It then tells us in which year this occurred, dating it in nine different ways. . . .
1. From the Creation of the World
The proclamation first dates the birth of Christ relative to the creation of the world:
when ages beyond number had run their course
from the creation of the world,
when God in the beginning created heaven and earth,
and formed man in his own likeness;
This offers a non-specific date. It is merely after “ages beyond number.”
The traditional version of the proclamation is much more specific: It says “In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world.”
This follows an ancient system of reckoning that differs from the Ussher chronology (developed by the Anglican archbishop, James Ussher, 1581-1656), which held that the world began in 4004 B.C.
The currently approved English translation, however, avoids mentioning any specific number of years.
This is the actual Grotto of the Nativity under the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Why is there so much confusion today about Christmas and what it means?
There’s a lot of confusion about Christmas.
Is it a day? Is it a season? Is it based on a pagan holiday? What is its real meaning?
Here are 9 things you should know about Christmas . . .
1. What is “the real meaning of Christmas”?
Although many voices in pop culture suggest that the true meaning of Christmas is being kind to each other, or being with our families, or something like that, the real meaning of the day–and the season it begins–is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:
525 Jesus was born in a humble stable, into a poor family. Simple shepherds were the first witnesses to this event. In this poverty heaven’s glory was made manifest. The Church never tires of singing the glory of this night:
The Virgin today brings into the world the Eternal
and the earth offers a cave to the Inaccessible.
The angels and shepherds praise him
and the magi advance with the star,
For you are born for us,
Little Child, God eternal!
2. Christmas is not based on a pagan holiday.
No matter how many times you hear Sheldon Cooper (or anyone else) say Christmas is based on a pagan holiday (whether Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, or anything else), we simply have no evidence of this.
If you read the writings of the Church Fathers, you do not find those who assign Christmas to December 25th saying things like, “Let’s put Jesus’ birthday here so we can subvert a pagan holiday.” (Not that subverting pagan holidays is a bad thing.)
They simply don’t do that. The ones who say Jesus was born on December 25th do so because that is when they think he was born.
In his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict comments:
Originally, before he was elected pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wanted to retire and write a book about his own personal views on Jesus Christ, as he is presented in the gospels. He read many books like this when he was younger, and now he wanted to write his own to help people grow closer to Jesus.
He had even begun working on it in the summer holidays he had in 2003 and 2004, before John Paul II passed on in 2005.
But then he was elected pope and all his free time vanished. He still cared enough about the project, though, to make time for it.
Because he was elected pope at an elderly age, he wasn’t sure how long he would live and if he would have the time and energy to complete the project, so instead of writing one book covering all of the gospels, he wrote three, covering different parts.
Volume 1 of the series covered the first part of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Volume 2 covered Jesus’ passion and resurrection. And now in Volume 3 he is going back to finish the series by covering the “infancy narratives.”
2. What are the “infancy narratives”?
The infancy narratives are the parts of the gospels that deal with Jesus’ life before his adult ministry–that is, the parts when he was an “infant.”
That’s an approximate term, though, because they actually cover the period before he was born (in fact, before he was even conceived) and also an incident later in his childhood, when he was about twelve years old.
Only two of the four gospels–Matthew and Luke–cover this period, and they each devote the first two chapters of their gospels to it.
Properly speaking, the infancy narratives are Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2.
3. Does Pope Benedict think that these parts of the gospels are historical?
Early Christian writers speak of a mysterious, 1st century figure called “John the Presbyter.” Who was he, and why is he significant?
Recently we looked at the claim that Mark derived the information in his Gospel from St. Peter.
This claim dates to a first century source: a figure called “John the Presbyter,” who was a disciple of Jesus.
According to some in the early Church–and according to Pope Benedict–we may have already met this mysterious figure in a surprising way.
Here’s the story . . .
A John By Any Other Name
As we saw previously (CLICK HERE TO READ PART 1), John the Presbyter was a figure apparently distinct from John the Apostle.
He also goes by different names in English, since the Greek word for “presbyter”–presbuteros–can be translated “elder.”
Thus sometimes we read of him as “John the Elder” or “the Presbyter John” or “the Elder John.” It’s all the same in Greek.
He has often been conflated with John the Apostle, for several reasons.
One is that they were both, apparently, disciples of Jesus, though the presbyter was not an apostle.
Another is that, in later years, they both apparently lived at Ephesus.
But they may be related in another way . . .
John the Presbyter and Scripture
There is some reason to think that John the Presbyter–like St. Mark–may have been one of those companions of the apostles who ended up playing a role in writing the New Testament.
You’ll note that 2 John and 3 John are both addressed as being from “the Presbyter”/”the Elder”:
2 John 1: ” The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth . . . “
3 John 1: “The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.”
Thus St. Jerome reports:
He [John the Apostle] wrote also one Epistle which begins as follows That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes and our hands handled concerning the word of life [i.e., 1 John] which is esteemed of by all men who are interested in the church or in learning.
The other two of which the first is The elder to the elect lady and her children [i.e., 2 John] and the other The elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth, [i.e., 3 John] are said to be the work of John the presbyter to the memory of whom another sepulchre is shown at Ephesus to the present day, though some think that there are two memorials of this same John the evangelist [Lives of Illustrious Men 9].
Commening on the list of people Papias did research on, St. Jerome remarks:
It appears through this catalogue of names that the John who is placed among the disciples is not the same as the elder John whom he places after Aristion in his enumeration. This we say moreover because of the opinion mentioned above, where we record that it is declared by many that the last two epistles of John are the work not of the apostle but of the presbyter [ibid. 18]
Pope Benedict Weighs In
Over the centuries, the distinction between John the Apostle and John the Presbyter was obscured, but it has received new attention in recent years.
In Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 1, Pope Benedict writes:
This information is very remarkable indeed: When combined with related pieces of evidence, it suggests that in Ephesus there was something like a Johannine school, which traced its origins to Jesus’ favorite disciple himself, but in which a certain “Presbyter John” presided as the ultimate authority.
This “presbyter” John appears as the sender and author of the Second and Third Letters of John (in each case in the first verse of the first chapter) simply under the title “the presbyter” (without reference to the name John).
He is evidently not the same as the Apostle, which means that here in the canonical text we encounter expressly the mysterious figure of the presbyter.
He must have been closely connected with the Apostle; perhaps he had even been acquainted with Jesus himself.
After the death of the Apostle, he was identified wholly as the bearer of the latter’s heritage, and in the collective memory, the two figures were increasingly fused.
At any rate, there seem to be grounds for ascribing to “Presbyter John” an essential role in the definitive shaping of the Gospel [of John], though he must always have regarded himself as the trustee of the tradition he had received from the son of Zebedee.
I entirely concur with the conclusion that Peter Stuhlmacher has drawn from the above data. He holds “that the contents of the Gospel go back to the disciple whom Jesus (especially) loved. The presbyter understood himself as his transmitter and mouthpiece” (Biblische Theologie, II, p. 206). In a similar vein Stuhlmacher cites E. Ruckstuhl and P. Dschullnigg to the effect that “the author of the Gospel of John is, as it were, the literary executor of the favorite disciple” (ibid., p. 207) [Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 1, pp. 226-227].
Pope Benedict thus sees John the Presbyter as the author of 2 and 3 John and as having helped with the writing of the Gospel of John, based on the memories of John the Apostle.
Not an Act of the Magisterium
As Pope Benedict famously said in the preface to Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 1, the work is not an act of the Magisterium, and “everyone is free, then, to contradict me.”
One might thus hold that John the Presbyter had no hand in writing the New Testament.
Or one might hold that the early Church writers are confused and that John the Presbyter is identical with John the Apostle.
New Testament Author Describes History of New Testament?
But what we have read raises the intriguing possibility that we have more than just a first century tradition regarding how Mark’s Gospel was written.
We may, in fact, have a case of another New Testament author telling us about the origin of Mark’s Gospel.
That wouldn’t be the case if John the Presbyter had no hand in writing the New Testament. In that case, he would be merely a first century voice telling us about the origin of Mark’s Gospel (which is exciting enough).
But it would be the case if Pope Benedict (and St. Jerome, and others) is correct that John the Presbyter is a distinct figure who had a hand in writing the New Testament.
And it also would be the case if John the Presbyter is identical with John the Apostle.
Either way, we would have the origin of St. Mark’s Gospel revealed by one of the other authors of the New Testament.
St. Mark is thought to have based his Gospel on what he learned as the companion of St. Peter. Would it surprise you to know that there is a 1st century source that says exactly this?
It is traditionally held that Mark wrote his gospel based on information he learned from St. Peter, after having been his travelling companion.
Where does this claim come from?
And would it surprise you to know that we have a first century source that claims precisely this?
Here’s the story . . .
What We Know About Mark
We know that Mark was a travelling companion of Peter, because Peter mentions the fact in his First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13).
We also know that Mark was a travelling companion of other apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, which Luke discussed in Acts.
Mark may have even been an eyewitness of part of Jesus’ earthly ministry. It is often thought that he refers to himself, anonymously, in his own gospel, as the man carrying a jug of water on his head or as the man who slips out of his clothes and runs away naked on the night Jesus is arrested.
Also, as Luke mentions in Acts, Mark’s mother was prominent in the early Christian community, which at times met at their house in Jerusalem.
So why would we suppose that Mark got the information from St. Peter in particular?
The Origin of the Claim
The claim is found today in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the so-called “father of Church history.” Specifically, it’s found in his multi-book set Church History (a.k.a. Ecclesiastical History).
Eusebius wrote this work just before the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). He finished it about A.D. 324.
The claim concerning Mark’s Gospel is earlier than that, though, because in the relevant passage of Church History, Eusebius is quoting an earlier writer, named Papias.
Who?
We don’t know as much about Papias as we’d like. He was a second century figure who served as the bishop of Hierapolis. This was a town in modern Turkey that is near Laodicea and–a bit more distantly–Ephesus and the other “seven churches of Asia” mentioned in Revelation.
Papias is known for having conducted a series of interviews with people who knew Jesus and his immediate disciples, thinking he could learn more by doing so than just by reading books alone.
He recorded his thoughts in a multi-volume work called Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord.
This work is now lost, but parts of it survive in quotations in other authors, including Eusebius.
For our purposes, a key point is when he wrote: He is thought to have written the Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord around A.D. 120-130 (or even earlier).
That carries our tradition about Mark’s connection to Peter back to the early second century.
But we can carry it back further than that, because Papias was basing his book on earlier traditions, and in this case he names his source for this tradition.
The Presbyter?
Here is the relevant passage from Eusebius’s Church History. I’ve labelled who is speaking to make the source of particular words more obvious.
[Eusebius:] But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he [that is, Papias] gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
[Papias:] “This also the presbyter said:
[The Presbyter:] ‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.'”
So Eusebius is quoting Papias, and Papias is quoting a figure called “the Presbyter.”
Who is that?
Meet the Presbyter
“The Presbyter” is identified by Eusebius in the sentence immediately before the ones we quoted, where Eusebius writes:
Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion, who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John, to which we refer those who are fond of learning.
This individual–known as “John the Presbyter” or “John the Elder” (the Greek word presbuteros can be translated both ways)–is identified by Papias as a disciple of Jesus who was apparently distinct from John the Apostle.
A bit earlier, Eusebius quoted another passage from Papias, in which the second century author explained his interview method:
If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice [Church History 3:39:4].
Here Papias identifies John the Presbyter as a disciple of the Lord distinct from the previously-mentioned apostles, including John the Apostle.
Into the First Century
As we noted, Papias is writing c. A.D. 120-130 (or earlier), but he’s quoting the earlier source John the Presbyter.
That pushes the date of the tradition regarding the origin of Mark’s Gospel into the first century.
Remember: John the Presbyter is identified by Papias as one of “the disciples of the Lord,” which is why he was interested in interviewing him to find out what he said about Jesus’ teachings.
He and Aristion were, apparently, people who knew Jesus but who didn’t end up being appointed as apostles. They were, however, companions of apostles, just as Mark and Luke were.
And so it’s not surprising that John the Presbyter–a contemporary of St. Mark, one who lived at the same time Mark wrote his gospel–would have information about how Mark’s Gospel came to be.
In any event, we’re dealing with a first century tradition regarding the origin of Mark’s Gospel.
The Emperor Augustus was a "pontifex maximus." So how did that become a term for the pope?
Recently it was announced that Pope Benedict’s new Twitter handle is @pontifex.
Why did he pick this name, and what does it mean, anyway?
The word’s origin is more surprising than you might think!
Other Possible Names
Pope Benedict might have picked other names. Some plausible ones include:
@pope
@popebenedict
@popebenedictxvi
@benedictxvi
@popebenedict16
Why didn’t he pick any of these?
I would suggest two reasons.
Some May Already Be Taken
People have already been using some of the plausible papal Twitter handles, and Twitter does not easily reassign such names.
That’s why my own Twitter handle is @JimmyAkin3000 (Click here to follow me). Someone was already using my preferred handle, and they don’t easily reassign them.
Still, for the pope they might make an exception.
In fact, for all I know, they may have made an exception. Somebody may have already been using @pontifex.
But I think there’s another, even more practical reason.
Pope Benedict Is Thinking Ahead
While I hope that Pope Benedict reigns for many more years, he is not planning on being pope forever.
In thus think the main reason that he chose the handle he did is because he’s thinking ahead and didn’t want to make everyone have to sign up to get the next pope’s tweets–at whatever time there is a new pope.
In other words, he’s leaving future popes a ready-built Twitter platform that they can use to get their message out.
He thus didn’t include anything specific to him–no variation of “Benedict” or “XVI” in the handle.
That leaves us with generic words for pope–like “pope” and “pontifex.”
.
of the series covered the first part of Jesus’ earthly ministry. 
covered Jesus’ passion and resurrection. And now in 
