A papal palace in Jerusalem

The idea of such a project is enough to get each and every hair on each and every conspiracy theorist's head to stand on end. But, apparently, someone in the early 20th Century did not think the project entirely too far-fetched. Glancing through my copy of The Master Drawings of Otto Wagner the other day, on an entirely different errand, I discovered these beguiling watercolors. The proposal was authored in 1912 by Josef Heinisch, an Austrian architect who was very much a devotee of the Jugendstil, as was Wagner. Further commentary and background information are not provided.

I suspect that this was simply a student project, rather than any sort of official proposal sanctioned by the Holy See. However, at that time Pope Pius X was on the Chair of Peter and the papacy was still essentially a "prisoner of the Vatican". Relations with the Kingdom of Italy were chilly at best, and there was some talk throughout the years previous of the papacy moving. The Ottomans, who controlled the Middle East at the time, were not favorably disposed toward Italy, a stance which could have theoretically engendered an alliance with the popes. In any event, there was enough back story to make this pass muster as a decent theoretical project for a student to undertake.

An aerial view of the complex

The plan, as a whole, resembles that of one of the great French Gothic cathedrals

The elevation. Note the inscription. Rather interesting considering our current Jesuit Pontiff.

Section through the church.

The Holy Name of Jesus

The Monogram of the Holy Name of Jesus

"But Moses still pleaded with God: How if I appear before the Israelites with the message that the God of their fathers has sent me to them, and they ask me, What is his name? What answer shall I make? And God said to Moses, I am the God who IS; thou shalt tell the Israelites, THE GOD WHO IS has sent me to you. And he charged Moses again, That is what thou shalt tell the sons of Israel, that he who bears this name, the God of their fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has sent thee to them, and this is the name he will be known by for ever; it shall stand recorded, age after age." - Exodus 3:13-15

"And she will bear a son, whom thou shalt call Jesus, for he is to save his people from their sins." - Matthew 1:21

"So that everything in heaven and on earth and under the earth must bend the knee before the name of Jesus, and every tongue must confess Jesus Christ as the Lord, dwelling in the glory of God the Father." - Philippians 2:10

"The beast is a number, and makes men numbers. But God has a name, and God calls us by our name. He is a Person, and he seeks the person. He has a face, and he seeks our face. He has a heart, and he seeks our heart. For him, we are not some function in a "world machinery". On the contrary, it is precisely those who have no function that are his own. A name allows me to be addressed. A name denotes community. This is why Christ is the true Moses, the fullfiment of the revelation of God's name. He does not bring some new word as God's name; he does more than this, since he himself is the face of God. He himself is the name of God. In him, we can address God as "you", as person, as heart. His own name, Jesus, brings the mysterious name at the burning bush to its fulfillment; now we can see that God had not said all that he had to say but had interrupted his discourse for a time. This is because the name "Jesus" in its Hebrew form includes the word "Yahweh" and adds a further element to it: God "saves". "I am who I am" - thanks to Jesus, this now means: "I am the one who saves you." His Being is salvation." - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), The God of Jesus Christ: Meditations on a Triune God

First Impressions

I think the pope has carefully provided a positive first impression of himself while he has the world's attention (apart from those of a more traditionalist bent who are breathlessly watching every twitching finger of the papal court for signs of the imminent implosion of All That Is Catholic And Traditional and who bemoan the fact that His Holiness does not have the correct number of angels dancing on the heads of the pins of his pallium - I digress). Media coverage has been widespread and generally positive concerning the Supreme Pontiff. He looks friendly, he acts without arrogance, and he has expressed a genuine love of the poor. I have a hunch, given the cleanup that needs to happen in the Roman Curia - the central government of the Church, that Pope Francis may be storing up some positive press for the future. In our information age, when images can be spread around the world in an instant, the Pope has carefully crafted his first - and most memorable - impression. That way, when he goes to work cleaning out the Augean stables in the Curia (and perhaps in the Jesuit order as well? Dare we hope?), he will have some public good will stored up.

I am not suggesting at all that the Pope is being disingenuous in any way. I think that what we are seeing is a true portion of his character, but, that said, I think like all human beings he is a creature of complexity. Having read through some of his statements and homilies from when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, I can say with confidence that this man has a backbone and says what he means when the appropriate time comes. He is a staunch, vocal, and straightforward defender of the faith. This, as well as his affable public image, will serve him well when the hammer needs to be brought down on certain things in Rome.

At least, that's my first impression. I could be completely wrong.

Heraldic Musings

The coat-of-arms of Pope Francis I (yes, I know he won't technically be the first until there's a second) has been released by the Vatican today. Heraldry is an interesting field in which symbols can reveal a good deal about a person. Examining Francis' armorial bearings is the way I have chosen to read the tea leaves about his papacy. Because, you know, I'm a visual learner and all that jazz.

Now, lest anyone squawk about the inclusion of the papal tiara (the crown), please bear in mind that there are several permitted ways to display heraldic achievements. Yes, Pope Francis has personally chosen to follow Benedict XVI's lead in showing an episcopal mitre (bishop's hat) in place of the tiara, but in the realm of heraldry, it can still be appropriate to display papal arms with the traditional regalia of the tiara and the crossed keys - even if the pope doesn't choose to do that himself. Plus, this is one of the only comparatively high-res pics I could find.

The arms of His Holiness are the same that he used when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The blue field is dominated by the symbol of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) which shows the IHS monogram of Christ's name surmounted by a cross and supported by three nails, all within a radiant sun. A star and a flowering Spikenard fill out the bottom of the arms.

A few initial things that strike me about this choice of arms:

It emphasizes the Holy Family - the main symbols point to the three members of the Holy Family: the Jesuit monogram shows Jesus as the light of the world, the star refers to Mary (traditionally, though infrequently hailed as the Star of the Sea, and more recently as the Star of the New Evangelization), and the grape-like Spikenard flowers are a traditional South American symbol for St. Joseph, to whom the pope apparently has great devotion. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph - the family as the center of God's plan for humanity. 

It is Marian - Pope Francis has already shown his devotion to Our Lady through his actions as pope. His arms reinforce this devotion. The field is blue - the traditional Marian color. Again, the star is a reference to Mary leading the way to Christ.

His motto - Though not depicted here, Pope Francis has chosen to keep his archiepiscopal motto Miserando Atque Eligendo, which translates loosely to Lowly, yet chosen. It is a reference to St. Bede the Venerable's commentary on the calling of St. Matthew. Our pope apparently had a strong conversion experience on the Feast of St. Matthew in 1953 at the age of 17. Pope Francis likened his experience to that of the Lord "choosing" St. Matthew, though he was of despised origin. The themes of mercy and humility are already becoming leitmotifs of this pontificate, and I can see the Pope encouraging renewed devotion to the Divine Mercy. From a personal perspective, I appreciate the connection to my name-saint.

All in all, I rather like the coat-of-arms from a graphic perspective. It's a nice change-of-pace from the rather busy red-and-gold dominated arms of Benedict XVI and the overly simplistic arms of John Paul II.     

His Holiness, Pope Francis

 Habemus Papam! We have a pope! I was surprised, confused, and - in the end - delighted to see Cardinal Bergoglio elected as the 265th successor of St. Peter! May God strengthen him and Our Lady protect him as he begins his pontificate!

There's been a great deal of ceaseless caterwauling from both extremes of the Church over the past 24 hours, which, I think is a good sign wrapped in some ugly packages. This man has already stated that he wants to be a man of brotherhood and reconciliation, a position that will no doubt continue to ruffle feathers.

In all, my heart is happy as I recall the words of Our Lord to St. Francis of Assisi all those years ago: "Francis, Francis, rebuild my church, which you can see has fallen to ruin." Viva il Papa!

Exit Benedict

I am still stunned that our Holy Father has decided - no doubt after much time spent in prayer - to abdicate the Chair of St. Peter. Benedict XVI is in many ways dearer to me than John Paul II ever was. I reached a level of maturity (I will probably never claim to be mature) during Benedict's pontificate. His nearly eight year reign coincides roughly with my eight years in high school and college. Formative years for anyone, as I'm sure you'll agree.

I remember clearly the death of John Paul and the election of Benedict. We were up at my cottage for the weekend and I remember hearing it on the radio in our dining room. The next week was my spring break, which I spent with my grandparents up north, and - since my grandpa was and remains a news junkie - we listened to much of the coverage on CNN radio on the way to and from construction sites. I remember feeling not so much sadness as curiosity. It was a big deal and I knew it.

Benedict XVI was elected after recess one day the following week. I saw the coverage on a TV in a fifth-grade classroom. Though I was nearing the end of my eighth-grade year, I stopped in the room and watched as the pope appeared on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica for the first time. In the few years after, I sort of bought into the nonsense about him being a grumpy old man who was a hardline conservative (whatever that means) and honestly didn't pay him much attention. It wasn't until my freshman year at Ball State that I begin to truly discover who this pope was.

I read his first encyclical Deus Caritas Est in its entirety on a whim one day. I had been on the Vatican's website searching for some info for some Protestant neighbors of mine who had some question about the Church. It was a breath of fresh air into a stale spirit. This was not the type of writing I expected from a pope! It was easy to read, but profound in its insights. I was delighted, and my admiration for Benedict XVI, his spirituality, and his intellect has only increased since.

Having followed "the Catholic news" for awhile now, I am not as surprised as perhaps some others are that the pope has decided to step down. But, it is certainly shocking in its sheer lack of much precedent. The next month will be very interesting to say the least, and I look forward to the next conclave and the next man chosen to be the successor of St. Peter. May the Holy Spirit be a comfort to Pope Benedict and a guide to the College of Cardinals in the weeks to come.

Two interesting quotes

"Live with your century, but do not be its captive; render to your contemporaries what they need, not what they praise." - Friedrich Schiller

“Faith in Jesus Christ is quite simply true; and the truth never ages. Ideologies have their days numbered. They appear powerful and irresistible but, after a certain period, they wear out and lose their energy because they lack profound truth. They are particles of truth, but in the end they are consumed.” - Pope Benedict XVI

It is curious that I happened upon these two quotes this week. They are very much related, I think.

Our Pope on Our Liturgy

Our dear pontiff Benedict XVI is a man whose intellectual capacity is a true marvel to me. I believe he truly has a fantastically analytical mind, which is in constant conversation with a gentle, humble heart - it is this synthesis that makes many of his statements so profound. Below is a small portion of a talk our current pope gave in 2000, before he was elected to the Chair of Peter. The overarching theme of the entire speech concerned the New Evangelization, and how the Church might go about fulfilling its missionary mandate in the postmodern landscape. The snippet below is his thoughts on how the liturgy must reflect our message (emphases mine).

While on this subject, may I be allowed to make a general observation on the liturgical question. Our way of celebrating the liturgy is very often too rationalistic. The liturgy becomes teaching, whose criteria is: making ourselves understood—often the consequence of this is making the mystery a banality, the prevalence of our words, the repetition of phrases that might seem more accessible and more pleasant for the people.

But this is not only a theological error but also a psychological and pastoral one. The wave of esoterism, the spreading of Asian techniques of relaxation and self-emptying demonstrate that something is lacking in our liturgies. It is in our world of today that we are in need of silence, of the super-individual mystery, of beauty.

The liturgy is not an invention of the celebrating priest or of a group of specialists; the liturgy (the "rite") came about via an organic process throughout the centuries, it bears with it the fruit of the experience of faith of all the generations.

Even if the participants do not perhaps understand each single word, they perceive the profound meaning, the presence of the mystery, which transcends all words. The celebrant is not the center of liturgical action; the celebrant is not in front of the people in his own name—he does not speak by himself or for himself, but in persona Christi. The personal abilities of the celebrant do not count, only his faith counts, by which Christ becomes transparent. "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30).

I feel keeping these four short paragraphs in mind will help Catholics understand the reasons behind the revisions coming to the mass in two short weeks. We need to restore and revive the mystery and beauty of our worship.

Paradise Regained?

"If we had to choose today, would Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Mary, the Son of the Father, have a chance? Do we really know Jesus at all? Do we understand him? Do we not perhaps have to make an effort, today as always, to get to know him all over again? The tempter is not so crude as to suggest to us directly that we should worship the devil. He merely suggests that we opt for the reasonable decision, that we choose to give priority to a planned and thoroughly organized world, where God may have his place as a private concern but must not interfere in our essential purposes." - Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Ch. 2

Ever since we got the boot out of Eden, we humans have been trying desperately to regain our earthly paradise. Perhaps we can say it began with the story of the tower of Babel, when we thought we could pridefully build our way back up to God. The attempts have continued since.

We have been discussing in my history of architecture class the various reactionary movements inspired by the Industrial Revolution. Mechanization of industry set in motion a number of attempts at Utopianism - attempting to create a beautiful, equal, and productive society. Of course, the most vile of these was Marxism, which lead to untold misery and disaster. However, it is perhaps the more milder ideas that still influence us the most. The captains of industry building rational, self-sufficient suburbs for their workers. The City Beautiful movement that sought to bring life and equality into city life. The Arts and Crafts movement that brought production away from the machines back into the hands of skilled artisans, who organized themselves in self-sufficient guilds.

The idea that we can somehow establish a utopian society on earth rests on two fundamental assumptions: that human beings are on a constant trajectory of moral and social advancement, and that our priorities are utterly and completely based alleviating all suffering in this world. Evidence of these two assumptions is plentiful in our American society. We laugh at the silliness and ignorance of those who came before us - thinking ourselves the most enlightened generation to ever walk the earth. We live in the 21st Century, for God's sake! We are naturally superior! We have evolved out of all that nonsense! Why does anyone need to suffer? Look at all of the technology we have developed, surely we can save ourselves from destruction of any kind!

We, as a society, have opted for a planned and thoroughly organized world. A world of complete rationality, escape from suffering, and constant material advancement. Where does God fit into a society where we set ourselves up as our own saviors? He is treated merely as an inherited cultural superstition - harmless to invoke in private, but an offense to our enlightened and decidedly sensible civilization.

My colleagues and friends are all engaged in professions that involve progress. I am not here to remotely suggest that progress in medicine, engineering, or design is inherently bad - quite the contrary! We are indeed called to assist our fellow man. However, it is when we suggest that we can exterminate suffering and live in complete peace and harmony that we approach the dangerous pride and subsequent ruin of Babel.

Eliakim and St. Peter walk into a bar

Ok, so that never happened, but I'm feeling in a particularly swell mood today, so I thought I'd do an attention-grabbing title. However, if Eliakim and St. Peter were to walk into a bar at some point, I'm sure they'd have lots to talk about. Most importantly, they would probably talk about keys. Exciting, right? Well, read on, patient reader. The key is an interesting symbol that has very ancient meanings. We catch glimpses of the meaning in modern times when we speak of a mayor conferring on some important citizen a 'key to the city' for example. Giving over of keys is a way of conferring authority on another person. Consider: you leave town and give a key to your house to a trusted friend; that friend has a form of authority over your house. They can open and close your house, and take care of it while you are away.

Both Eliakim and St. Peter were conferred keys during the readings yesterday at mass. Though they lived hundreds of years apart, their stories point to the same truths about God, Jesus, and the nature of the Church. We will look at both of these stories, one from the Old Testament, one from the New. For, as the ancient Church Fathers loved to say: "The Old Testament is revealed in the New, and the New Testament is hidden in the Old." The way God dealt with the Israelites in the Old Testament prefigures the way he establishes the Church in the New Testament.

Fist, Peter and Jesus. This should be a passage familiar to most Catholics (and to many Protestants who dispute its meaning). Again, this was the Gospel reading for this past weekend:

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them. "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bat-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:13-19

In this passage, Christ asks his Apostles who the world thinks that he is. The world is a confused place. People have lots of crazy ideas about Jesus. This is especially true in our modern times as well. Jesus was a peace-loving hippie. Jesus was a communist. Jesus was a feminist. Jesus was a socialist. Jesus was just a guy. Jesus was just a spirit. Jesus was a figment of Paul's imagination. Et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum...

But Peter - the commonest of the Apostles, the Everyman, the sinner in need of repentance - replies that Jesus is none of that. Jesus is nothing more and nothing less than the Messiah, the son of God, the salvation of men. And for that, Jesus blesses Peter for his faith and entrusts him with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, giving him the power to bind and loose on earth. These keys symbolize Jesus handing over to Peter earthly authority to exercise power in His name. This power is used to steward the people of God on earth, the Church, which is founded on the sinful, common back of Peter. The Catholic Church believes that this authority was handed on from Peter all the way down to the present day through a series of sinful, common men called popes.

But now, let us go back and look at Isaiah, who - in a manner of speaking - prophesied this event centuries before.

"In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and I will bind your belt on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house." - Isaiah 22:20-23

In this passage, God is speaking to the current steward of the royal household, Shebna, who must've been doing just a really crappy job. So, basically, God says, "I'm going to find a better guy to give the keys of authority to and he will be an honor to his people and to his father." We find in this passage a nice corollary with Peter being given the keys of the kingdom and a summary of papal authority.

Reading this passage in light of the New Testament - through the lens of Christ, if you will - we see that Christ will give authority to someone trusted who will become a father to God's house (the Church). The house of David symbolizes Christ's royal authority and lineage. The keys, again, are a symbol of power and responsibility to be a steward of the house. Open and shut can be replaced with bind and loose and retain similar meaning. Fastening like a peg in a sure spot is just like founding a house on a rock - it is something immovable and permanent (and something Christ himself recommends in Matthew 7:24).

The Church is the immovable house on rock of which Christ gave the keys to Peter before he ascended into heaven. The Church exercises its authority in the name of the master of the house, Jesus, through men who are guided by the Holy Spirit, the spirit that continues to guide them into all truth (John 16:13). The house called the Church is a refuge for all of the sinners of the world, so that they might become saints. It is a refuge from the madness of the world. And, it is the only refuge that will survive until the end of the world, for, we have it on reliable authority that Hades will not prevail against it.

But, perhaps the biggest point of this post was not to establish a fool-proof way for proving papal authority or the providence of the institutional Church, but to show that the God of the Old Testament is the same God as that revealed in the New Testament. And, by reading the Old Testament in the light of Christ, we can come to a better understanding of passages which may appear to have little or no relevance otherwise. Next week: King Solomon and Mary walk into a bar. Mary ducks.

Pope Leo XIII and the Dictatorship of Relativism

I'm not sure what possessed me to do this, but, over the past few days, I've been reading (and annotating, and highlighting, and digesting) Leo XIII's encyclical Libertas which concerns itself with the notion of true, Christian liberty. It is fascinating, nay - astounding, how prophetic Leo's words are (this letter being written in 1888). Often, our current pope discourses and laments on what he terms the 'dictatorship of relativism' - the current vogue intellectual notion that claims that absolute truth is unknowable and each person is free to decide what truths work for them personally. In its extreme, such a philosophy could result in murder being acceptable to one person, but not for another, based on their disagreeing definitions of moral truths. Leo anticipated this radical departure from both faith and reason in Libertas. Have a read for yourself. The excerpt is a bit lengthy, I admit, but intriguing in its foresight nonetheless. Emphases mine.

"The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.

"Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgement of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of the majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society, once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference."

Many goings-on in our current societal state were predicted in these two paragraphs alone. The supposed power of the majority to overturn natural law (as in the case of redefining marriage). The pursuit of pleasure being made the basis of law. The dictum that all people have a radical right to complete emancipation from participation in the demands of civil society. The animosity toward the Church, which nowadays has to defend its reason as well as its faith, since society has clearly done away with reason.

I encourage all of my readers to read this document in its entirety. It is not that long (as far as Papal encyclicals go), and the dialect is not a huge obstacle. In my ideal world, this would be read in every civics classroom across the land. The full text can be found here.

The Daily Niblet: If human society is to be healed

As one of my good friends once quipped, "When a pope takes the name Pius, playtime's over." It does seem so. From Pius I who excommunicated the heretic Marcion, to Pius V who laid the smackdown on the Ottoman Turks - thus saving Europe, to Pius X who just flat wouldn't put up with Modernist theological nonsense, the papal name of Pius seems to have a certain tone of frankness about it. Pius XI was no exception. He saw the concluding of the Lateran Treaty, which guaranteed the Vatican's existence as a sovereign state, and he canonized several important saints such as Albertus Magnus, Thomas More, and Therese of Lisieux. However, the point of this installment of the Niblet comes from his teaching in his encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno in which he discusses the moral and ethical dimensions of economic and social issues. For your reading pleasure, a snippet of his philosophy:

"'Wherefore,' to use the words of Our Predecessor, 'if human society is to be healed, only a return to Christian life and institutions will heal it.' For this alone can provide effective remedy for that excessive care of passing things that is the origin of all vices; and this alone can draw away men's eyes, fascinated by and wholly fixed on the changing things of the world, and raise them toward Heaven. Who would deny that human society is in most urgent need of this cure now?" - Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno

The pope wrote this passage in 1931, yet it still bears fruit for thought for our current age.

Happy Birthday to the Pope

Today is the 84th birthday of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI. Born in Marktl, in Bavaria, Germany to Georg and Maria Ratzinger, Joseph Ratzinger lived much of his early life with the desire to become a priest. His seminary studies were interrupted by his forced conscription in the German Army during World War II. No ideological sympathizer with Nazism (his cousin with Down syndrome had been taken to a concentration camp), he deserted his unit toward the end of the war, and was eventually allowed to return to his theological studies. He and his brother Georg were ordained on the same day as priests of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising.

His priestly ministry centered on his teaching at various universities throughout Germany. He participated in the Second Vatican Council as an assistant to the Archbishop of Cologne. In favor of the reforms of the Council, he nonetheless wished to not break from the past as other, more radical theologians had desired. This position in the middle of the two extremes of modernism and traditionalism in the Church remains central to his papal ministry today.

In 1977, Ratzinger was appointed Archbishop of Munich and Freising by Pope Paul VI. He served as archbishop from then until 1982, when he was made Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope John Paul II, which caused him to move to Rome. As Prefect, he upheld the orthodox Catholic faith by reinforcing traditional views on priestly ministry, marriage, birth control, and other moral issues.

Ratzinger was elected pope during the Conclave of 2005, following the death of John Paul II. His firm defense of orthodoxy, coupled with his theological intellect, made him an appealing candidate. He took the name Benedict XVI because of his admiration for St. Benedict, an early monastic reformer and co-patron of Europe, and for Pope Benedict XV who worked tirelessly for peace during World War I.

Presenting the faith as the ultimate source of fulfillment in life has been a hallmark of Benedict's papacy. His three insightful encyclicals (letters on doctrine), have revolved around faith, hope, and love in the Christian faith as the ends to which all men aspire. His apostolic visits around the world have been marked with this message, delivered in a gentle and caring manner, contrary to the means of many of his detractors. Benedict has the heart and mind of a professor, who is proposing the faith to a classroom that has fallen asleep.

+    +    +

At the start of his pontificate, Benedict did not impress me. I am not sure why, but I feel like it was due to my immaturity in my faith at that point in my life. As I have grown over the past few years into someone striving to take his faith more seriously, I have begun to appreciate more and more just how blessed we Catholics are to have a Pope like Benedict. The man is astoundingly intelligent (don't believe me, read some of his writings), has a caring heart for the entire world, and desires the unity of the Church as a force for Christ for fallen humanity. He has defended the moral positions of the Church with clarity, charity, and submission to the Gospel and Tradition, confounding many who see him as cold and autocratic. He is truly a "humble laborer in the vineyard of the Lord," just as he said on that April day in 2005 from the balcony of St. Peter's. 

"May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies." - Psalm 40:3

(Picture taken from our friend Ross at subtectummeum.tumblr.com, because it is the most awesome picture of the Pope I have ever seen.)

O Clavis David

O CLAVIS DAVID et sceptrum domus Israel, qui aperis, et nemo claudit; claudis, et nemo aperit: veni et educ vinctum de domo carceris, sedentem in tenebris et umbra mortis.

O KEY OF DAVID (Isaiah 22:23), scepter of the house of Israel (Genesis 49:10), who open and no one may shut; who shut and no one may open: come, free from prison captive man, who lies in darkness and the shadow of death (Psalm 107: 10, 14).

The key is an intriguing Messianic symbol. It presents Christ as the way that something is opened, a prophecy revealed by Isaiah. Likewise, the so-called power of the keys involves what is known in Biblical literature as "binding and loosing" - in the Old Testament, this had more literal meaning which took on a deeper meaning in the New Testament. Consider: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19.

Christ delegates his Messianic, Davidic power of the keys to his Apostles, and to Peter - their chief - in particular. This is to ensure that the power of binding and loosing in the sense of the forgiveness of sins, could be established in the world. This power remains with the Popes, whose chief symbol is two crossed keys, and the bishops who succeed the Apostles. They hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven while Christ is not with us - just as you might leave the keys to your house with a trusted friend if you were leaving town. Christ entrusted his closest followers with the stewardship of his church, to imitate him as Good Shepherd after his physical departure from the earth.

To understand more fully this power, the original prophecy of Isaiah must be taken in its context. Isaiah 22:23 reads, "I will place the key of the house of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one will shut, when he shuts, no one will open." These words were spoken about Eliakim, who was to become the steward of King of Israel. When we read these words in light of Jesus, we see striking parallels. Jesus was always prophesied to be of the house of David, and was to be the messiah who would restore the Kingdom of Israel. The New King is Jesus, the king of kings, who reigns forever in heaven, our true calling. The New Israel is the Church, the people of God set apart, journeying toward heaven. The new stewards are Peter, and his successors, the Popes, pointing to Jesus, the true key that opens wide our heavenly home by his sacrifice on the cross.

Of course, in order for any of us to truly follow and love the way God wants us to, we must first unlock our hearts and allow His love in. Jesus, who is the key to all of our souls, "stands at the door and knocks"(Revelation 3:20), calling us to allow him to open our hearts to his love. During this Christmas season, it is a good time to recommit to allowing him into our hearts, so that we too can take a part in the stewardship of his kingdom on earth. For we are all called to cultivate the love of God in our lives, which were given to us by God as gifts to use wisely.

I will end with this wonderfully appropriate quote from our dear Pope Benedict XVI:

"God...does not impose himself, he never uses force to enter, but asks, as a child does, to be welcomed. In a certain sense, God too presents himself in need of attention: he waits for us to open our hearts to him, to take care of him."

Pictured is St. Peter with the keys.