The Divided Pope: A Review

[Michie]

Yves Chiron is a reputable French scholar whose specialty is nineteenth- and twentieth-century Catholic history. Chiron has written biographies of Edmund Burke, Pius IX, Pius X, Benedict XV, the seers of Fatima, Pius XI, and Padre Pio. In 2020 he published the Françoisphobie: François Bashing, and in February 2022 Histoire des Traditionalistes, the fruit of over twenty years of research (I have heard that an English translation will be coming out in 2024). Chiron’s biography of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, which appeared in French in 2014 and in English in 2018, is considered the best and most thorough treatment so far on the controversial liturgical reformer.[1]


In 2003, Chiron published a biography of Pope St. Paul VI, and in 2008 a revised edition. Chiron did not alter his appraisal of the pontiff but added several clarifications and new points of view that came to light after the publication of the first edition. He also expanded on several points from the first edition, such as the influence of Jacques Maritain on the political thought of Paul VI.

Thanks to translator James Walther and Angelico Press, the 2008 edition was made available in English last year under the title Paul VI: The Divided Pope.

Walther’s translation is smooth and readable, and it includes additional footnotes about some of the persons and movements in Paul VI’s life. The new edition also begins with a foreword by Henry Sire. Sire, a historian of modern Catholicism and a papal biographer himself, offers a spirited analysis of the pontificates of Paul VI and Francis, noting the parallels between how the two pontiffs were elected and the tension between their goal of liberalizing the Church and their autocratic ruling styles. If Paul VI is the Divided Pope, Sire concludes, Francis is the Divisive Pope. Catholics who are worried about the so-called Francis effect can thus gain a better perspective by understanding the pontificate of Paul VI.

Chiron’s own approach is more dispassionate: “The historian is not a judge or arbitrator,” he asserts in a recent interview. “The most he can do is to be rigorous in his research and in the portrait he draws.”[2]

Continued below.

The Divided Pope: A Review

Sacred liturgy and liturgical arts. Liturgical history and theology. The movements for the Usus Antiquior and Reform of the Reform.

www.newliturgicalmovement.org

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yves Chiron is a reputable French scholar whose specialty is nineteenth- and twentieth-century Catholic history. Chiron has written biographies of Edmund Burke, Pius IX, Pius X, Benedict XV, the seers of Fatima, Pius XI, and Padre Pio. In 2020 he published the Françoisphobie: François Bashing, and in February 2022 Histoire des Traditionalistes, the fruit of over twenty years of research (I have heard that an English translation will be coming out in 2024). Chiron’s biography of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, which appeared in French in 2014 and in English in 2018, is considered the best and most thorough treatment so far on the controversial liturgical reformer.[1]


In 2003, Chiron published a biography of Pope St. Paul VI, and in 2008 a revised edition. Chiron did not alter his appraisal of the pontiff but added several clarifications and new points of view that came to light after the publication of the first edition. He also expanded on several points from the first edition, such as the influence of Jacques Maritain on the political thought of Paul VI.

Thanks to translator James Walther and Angelico Press, the 2008 edition was made available in English last year under the title Paul VI: The Divided Pope.

Walther’s translation is smooth and readable, and it includes additional footnotes about some of the persons and movements in Paul VI’s life. The new edition also begins with a foreword by Henry Sire. Sire, a historian of modern Catholicism and a papal biographer himself, offers a spirited analysis of the pontificates of Paul VI and Francis, noting the parallels between how the two pontiffs were elected and the tension between their goal of liberalizing the Church and their autocratic ruling styles. If Paul VI is the Divided Pope, Sire concludes, Francis is the Divisive Pope. Catholics who are worried about the so-called Francis effect can thus gain a better perspective by understanding the pontificate of Paul VI.

Chiron’s own approach is more dispassionate: “The historian is not a judge or arbitrator,” he asserts in a recent interview. “The most he can do is to be rigorous in his research and in the portrait he draws.”[2]

Continued below.

The Divided Pope: A Review

Sacred liturgy and liturgical arts. Liturgical history and theology. The movements for the Usus Antiquior and Reform of the Reform.

www.newliturgicalmovement.org

This pope is the first one I heard of in real time. I was too young to remember John XXIII. I grappled with his encyclical Humanae Vitae and concluded it was right but poorly argued. Finally that it was prophetic. Thank you Janet Smith!

I managed to get enough good from this pope that I was ready for JPII. But there was crazy (as in bat guano) stuff too in his appointments. Pope Francis seems worse, but really in a deja vu sense of reliving the worst of what happened in the late '60's. Paul's liturgical rulings were abysmal. His bishop appointments same thing. What a mess.

I spend most of my papal document reading still on John Paul and Benedict. There is so much gold to be mined there. But Paul VI's Evangelii Nuntiandi was a keeper too.

I think I'm finally ready for a good biography of pope Paul VI. This one might be it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This pope is the first one I heard of in real time. I was too young to remember John XXIII. I grappled with his encyclical Humanae Vitae and concluded it was right but poorly argued. Finally that it was prophetic. Thank you Janet Smith!

I managed to get enough good from this pope that I was ready for JPII. But there was crazy (as in bat guano) stuff too in his appointments. Pope Francis seems worse, but really in a deja vu sense of reliving the worst of what happened in the late '60's. Paul's liturgical rulings were abysmal. His bishop appointments same thing. What a mess.

I spend most of my papal document reading still on John Paul and Benedict. There is so much gold to be mined there. But Paul VI's Evangelii Nuntiandi was a keeper too.

I think I'm finally ready for a good biography of pope Paul VI. This one might be it.

You'd be interested to know that Cardinal Karol Józef Wojtyla(aka St Pope John Paul II) and then Cardinal Ratzinger, didn't
agree on much back in Vatican II, especially the Liturgical changes. Cardinal Ratzinger saw the need for change while
Cardinal Wojtyla sought few changes. As many today do not know, Cardinal Ratzinger, was more liberal than Cardinal Wojtyla. I was surprised to learn this myself. Especially after so-called trads praised Cardinal Ratzinger being elevated to Pope. They thought they had a true conservative, but the opposite was the actual case. When he was head of the Doctrine of Faith, he behaved more conservative than he actually was. Pope John Paul II chose him because not only was he a great theologian, but Pope John Paul II wanted someone who thought differently than he did himself.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You'd be interested to know that Cardinal Karol Józef Wojtyla(aka St Pope John Paul II) and then Cardinal Ratzinger, didn't
agree on much back in Vatican II, especially the Liturgical changes. Cardinal Ratzinger saw the need for change while
Cardinal Wojtyla sought few changes. As many today do not know, Cardinal Ratzinger, was more liberal than Cardinal Wojtyla. I was surprised to learn this myself. Especially after so-called trads praised Cardinal Ratzinger being elevated to Pope. They thought they had a true conservative, but the opposite was the actual case. When he was head of the Doctrine of Faith, he behaved more conservative than he actually was. Pope John Paul II chose him because not only was he a great theologian, but Pope John Paul II wanted someone who thought differently than he did himself.

I did know that. I was a ‘charter member of the ‘Ratzinger Fan Club’ way back when the ‘Ratzinger Report’ came out. I've read almost every document, book or encyclical, he ever wrote, including the oldies. I was in a Paulist parish back then when the 'Ratzinger Report' came out and they hated Ratzinger with a passion. But they withdrew from campus ministry at that location several years ago (Or were they invited out?) and now the Paulists do 'Out at St. Paul's' and similar LGBTQWERTY things. Those few Paulists who are left anyhow.

Funny thing is that as pope, Benedict brought back lots of old things and rescued indulgences from the dustbin of history. He also widened permission for the TLM from the narrow permissions of John Paul II, which opened it up from the essential ban of pope Paul VI. Of course that door is slamming shut again. Give me the 'liberalism' of Benedict any day.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I did know that. I was a ‘charter member of the ‘Ratzinger Fan Club’ way back when the ‘Ratzinger Report’ came out. I've read almost every document, book or encyclical, he ever wrote, including the oldies. I was in a Paulist parish back then when the 'Ratzinger Report' came out and they hated Ratzinger with a passion. But they withdrew from campus ministry at that location several years ago (Or were they invited out?) and now the Paulists do 'Out at St. Paul's' and similar LGBTQWERTY things. Those few Paulists who are left anyhow.

Funny thing is that as pope, Benedict brought back lots of old things and rescued indulgences from the dustbin of history. He also widened permission for the TLM from the narrow permissions of John Paul II, which opened it up from the essential ban of pope Paul VI. Of course that door is slamming shut again. Give me the 'liberalism' of Benedict any day.

Interesting!

I use to go on retreat at a retreat center run by Paulist. They were liberal back then and I ended up going on retreat at a
Trappist Monastery instead. The Paulist ended up closing the retreat center and relocated to Connecticut somewhere.

Pope Benedict XVI wasn't good at world politics, and got himself into trouble several times during his papacy.

As far as the TLM goes, he messed up by removing the authority of the local Bishops. Before, the TLM could only
be celebrated in their dioceses with their permission. Pope Benedict XVI removed that authority and any lay group
could request that the TLM be said and the Bishop had to comply. Pope Francis merely returned that authority to
the Bishops where it belongs. They could decide when and where the TLM could be celebrated.
As it is, we have it in the parish near me and there is a Benedictine Monastery which only celebrates the TLM.
So, Pope Francis did not ban it as many accuse him of, but merely returned authority to the Bishops. After all,
the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and generally works with the Bishops, not against them. He doesn't have the
authority to make a decision that goes against Vatican II, which he explained as to why he made the decision.


"Francis reimposed restrictions on celebrating the Latin Mass that Benedict had relaxed in 2007. Francis said he was doing so because Benedict's reform had become a source of division in the Roman Catholic Church and used as a tool by Catholics opposed to the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 event that led to wide reforms across the global church."

Francis reimposes restrictions on Latin Mass, reversing decision of Pope Benedict

Pope Francis cracked down July 16 on the spread of the old Latin Mass, reversing one of Pope Benedict XVI's signature decisions in a major challenge to traditionalist Catholics.

www.ncronline.org

 

[chevyontheriver]

Interesting!

I use to go on retreat at a retreat center run by Paulist. They were liberal back then and I ended up going on retreat at a
Trappist Monastery instead. The Paulist ended up closing the retreat center and relocated to Connecticut somewhere.

I thought the Paulists were quite something when I first ran into them. Turns out it was an older pastor and some older retired Paulists I was impressed with. Not so much the new guys, whose guru was Richard Sparks, CSP (Sparky as they called him.) They left me cold.

Pope Benedict XVI wasn't good at world politics, and got himself into trouble several times during his papacy.

He got in trouble with the Muslims. It's not politic to even hint that Islam might not be perfectly peaceful. He got in trouble with the USA. It's not politic to oppose a war the USA wants to fight. That war has been, IMHO, a colossal geopolitical disaster and a disaster for Middle East Christians. Just as it was predicted to be.

As far as the TLM goes, he messed up by removing the authority of the local Bishops. Before, the TLM could only
be celebrated in their dioceses with their permission. Pope Benedict XVI removed that authority and any lay group
could request that the TLM be said and the Bishop had to comply. Pope Francis merely returned that authority to
the Bishops where it belongs. They could decide when and where the TLM could be celebrated.

I'd believe that except for the many bishops who felt that in obedience to pope Francis they had to restrict the TLM. Maybe they wanted to ban it all along but felt the need to blame pope Francis? I donno.

As it is, we have it in the parish near me and there is a Benedictine Monastery which only celebrates the TLM.
So, Pope Francis did not ban it as many accuse him of, but merely returned authority to the Bishops. After all,
the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and generally works with the Bishops, not against them. He doesn't have the
authority to make a decision that goes against Vatican II, which he explained as to why he made the decision.

It would be good to see the details of all of those many bishops who were having problems with the TLM. So far it's been crickets. Pope Francis said he based his decision on a 2020 Vatican survey of all the world's bishops, whose "responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene." Zero details on that survey more than two years later.

"Francis reimposed restrictions on celebrating the Latin Mass that Benedict had relaxed in 2007. Francis said he was doing so because Benedict's reform had become a source of division in the Roman Catholic Church and used as a tool by Catholics opposed to the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 event that led to wide reforms across the global church."

Francis reimposes restrictions on Latin Mass, reversing decision of Pope Benedict

Pope Francis cracked down July 16 on the spread of the old Latin Mass, reversing one of Pope Benedict XVI's signature decisions in a major challenge to traditionalist Catholics.

www.ncronline.org

I do see that slamming the TLM folks has been a source of division. What does he call them? Indietrists? I learned a new word. I'd rather have skipped that one.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I thought the Paulists were quite something when I first ran into them. Turns out it was an older pastor and some older retired Paulists I was impressed with. Not so much the new guys, whose guru was Richard Sparks, CSP (Sparky as they called him.) They left me cold.

He got in trouble with the Muslims. It's not politic to even hint that Islam might not be perfectly peaceful. He got in trouble with the USA. It's not politic to oppose a war the USA wants to fight. That war has been, IMHO, a colossal geopolitical disaster and a disaster for Middle East Christians. Just as it was predicted to be.

I'd believe that except for the many bishops who felt that in obedience to pope Francis they had to restrict the TLM. Maybe they wanted to ban it all along but felt the need to blame pope Francis? I donno.

It would be good to see the details of all of those many bishops who were having problems with the TLM. So far it's been crickets. Pope Francis said he based his decision on a 2020 Vatican survey of all the world's bishops, whose "responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene." Zero details on that survey more than two years later.

I do see that slamming the TLM folks has been a source of division. What does he call them? Indietrists? I learned a new word. I'd rather have skipped that one.

FYI, I got it wrong.

It was not the Paulist, but Passionist who ran the retreat center. Nonetheless, they were still on the left side of things.


Do yourself a favor, stay away from Anti-Pope Francis media sites. They'll only have you confused.

 

[chevyontheriver]

FYI, I got it wrong.

It was not the Paulist, but Passionist who ran the retreat center. Nonetheless, they were still on the left side of things.


Do yourself a favor, stay away from Anti-Pope Francis media sites. They'll only have you confused.

Like Ann Barnhart? I severely limit my exposure.

 

[Michie]

Like Ann Barnhart? I severely limit my exposure.

Barnhardt is a nut.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Like Ann Barnhart? I severely limit my exposure.

Never heard of her.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Never heard of her.

If you had you would agree with Michie.

 

[zippy2006]

You'd be interested to know that Cardinal Karol Józef Wojtyla(aka St Pope John Paul II) and then Cardinal Ratzinger, didn't
agree on much back in Vatican II, especially the Liturgical changes. Cardinal Ratzinger saw the need for change while
Cardinal Wojtyla sought few changes. As many today do not know, Cardinal Ratzinger, was more liberal than Cardinal Wojtyla. I was surprised to learn this myself. Especially after so-called trads praised Cardinal Ratzinger being elevated to Pope. They thought they had a true conservative, but the opposite was the actual case. When he was head of the Doctrine of Faith, he behaved more conservative than he actually was. Pope John Paul II chose him because not only was he a great theologian, but Pope John Paul II wanted someone who thought differently than he did himself.

The propaganda surrounding these issues fails to understand all sorts of things:

• Ratzinger was from Germany, which was the seat of the liturgical movement
• The reigning conservatism of the early 20th century was Neo-Scholasticism, and anyone who resisted this was then considered liberal (i.e. Ratzinger). Wojtyla also resisted to a significant extent, but unlike Ratzinger his schooling was in Rome, under Thomists.
• By the time of his election, Ratzinger really was conservative relative to the times. Conservative Catholics favored him and traditionalists had a truce with him that was at times uneasy.
• Ratzinger made a strong distinction between a theologian and a representative of the Magisterium. He didn't "behave more conservative than he actually was," he just did his job as a representative of the Magisterium.

Ratzinger and Wojtyla were quite similar in their overall stance, and they had enormous respect for each other. It's not easy to say who was more liberal or conservative, but I think most historians and scholars would agree that Ratzinger was slightly more conservative on the whole.

 

[zippy2006]

I'd believe that except for the many bishops who felt that in obedience to pope Francis they had to restrict the TLM. Maybe they wanted to ban it all along but felt the need to blame pope Francis? I donno.

Ratzinger was less centralizing and interventionist than Francis on the whole. It is true that Ratzinger took the TLM out of bishops' hands, but he also took it out of his own hands in a very real sense. Francis did not place it back in the bishops' hands. He put it on life support and then forced any bishops who want to start a new TLM to first obtain the explicit approval of Rome.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The propaganda surrounding these issues fails to understand all sorts of things:

• Ratzinger was from Germany, which was the seat of the liturgical movement
• The reigning conservatism of the early 20th century was Neo-Scholasticism, and anyone who resisted this was then considered liberal (i.e. Ratzinger). Wojtyla also resisted to a significant extent, but unlike Ratzinger his schooling was in Rome, under Thomists.
• By the time of his election, Ratzinger really was conservative relative to the times. Conservative Catholics favored him and traditionalists had a truce with him that was at times uneasy.
• Ratzinger made a strong distinction between a theologian and a representative of the Magisterium. He didn't "behave more conservative than he actually was," he just did his job as a representative of the Magisterium.

Ratzinger and Wojtyla were quite similar in their overall stance, and they had enormous respect for each other. It's not easy to say who was more liberal or conservative, but I think most historians and scholars would agree that Ratzinger was slightly more conservative on the whole.

Actually Ratzinger and Wojtyla were opposite ideologically. It's why when he became Pope, John Paul II asked Ratzinger to head
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, because as he said, he wanted someone who thought different than himself in order
to keep his thinking in check.

When he became head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger followed a conservative ideology, but was
more liberal than what the public saw.

I was surprised when the retreat master, a staunch liberal, for the weekend I was on, stated how Cardinal Ratzinger was brilliant and had an open mind. I was surprised to hear this from this retreat master. So, I went to the gift shop and purchased books by Pope Benedict XVI.

Sure enough, he was far more progressive than the public saw him for when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In fact he explains the difference between conservatives and progressives in his book, "Values in a Time of Upheaval: Meeting the Challenges of the Future."

Pope Benedict XVI explains that when the need for change is needed, a "progressive," mindset is necessary. While those
of the conservative mindset, choose to keep the status quo.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ratzinger was less centralizing and interventionist than Francis on the whole. It is true that Ratzinger took the TLM out of bishops' hands, but he also took it out of his own hands in a very real sense. Francis did not place it back in the bishops' hands. He put it on life support and then forced any bishops who want to start a new TLM to first obtain the explicit approval of Rome.

Pope Francis put the authority back into the hands of the diocesan Bishops. My own diocese has a TLM at the local parish and
there is a Benedictine Monastery which only celebrates the TLM and Latin Liturgy of the Hours.

He did not prohibit it's use, as fundamentalist Catholics try to tell us.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Pope Francis put the authority back into the hands of the diocesan Bishops. My own diocese has a TLM at the local parish and
there is a Benedictine Monastery which only celebrates the TLM and Latin Liturgy of the Hours.

He did not prohibit it's use, as fundamentalist Catholics try to tell us.

Someone should tell the various bishops, including the bishop of Arlington, that they had been given the authority to freely authorize the TLM. Lots of bishops are unaware they have the freedom to exercise such authority. Enough of them feel the need to obey the pope and restrict the TLM.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Someone should tell the various bishops, including the bishop of Arlington, that they had been given the authority to freely authorize the TLM. Lots of bishops are unaware they have the freedom to exercise such authority. Enough of them feel the need to obey the pope and restrict the TLM.

The Bishops know they have the authority, it's what they complained about to begin with.

My Bishop isn't unique, he knows he can approve the TLM which he has done.

Pope Francis did not prohibit the TLM, only fundamentalist Catholics who hate him make this claim.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Bishops know they have the authority, it's what they complained about to begin with.

My Bishop isn't unique, he knows he can approve the TLM which he has done.

Pope Francis did not prohibit the TLM, only fundamentalist Catholics who hate him make this claim.

I made the claim based on what the bishop of Arlington VA wrote as his reasons. Am I a fundamentalist who hates the pope then? Is the bishop of Arlington VA?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I made the claim based on what the bishop of Arlington VA wrote as his reasons. Am I a fundamentalist who hates the pope then? Is the bishop of Arlington VA?

I made the claim based on what the bishop of Arlington VA wrote as his reasons. Am I a fundamentalist who hates the pope then? Is the bishop of Arlington VA?

The Bishops have the authority, but must also go through the process. One of the mandates is
having a priest who is fluent in Latin, and not just mimicking the Latin words. It wouldn't surprise
me that a Bishop will pass the buck and blame Pope Francis for not having a TLM.

If the Bishop can't provide the priest, he can't approve of having the TLM.

My dioceses have a couple of priests who are fluent in Latin, and celebrate the TLM at the local parish
near me.

Also, Papally approved religious orders don't need the Bishop's approval, but the approval of their
Provincial in Rome. The Benedictine Order in my dioceses only uses the TLM and has been doing so long
before Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Michie]

What is a fundamentalist Catholic?