What's up with the Church? Is the Eschaton immanent?
Benedict. Divide and conquer?
What's the meaning of the Popes's recent (October 2009) Apostolic Constitution inviting the Anglican Church (and hence the Episcopalians) to come in from the cold of the Reformation? Is it a gesture of reconciliation or a political tactic to destroy the Church of England? Whatever it is, it's very serious and has profound implications for both The Church and for the most elite order of the Protestant communions. Basically what Benedict has offered is inclusion within Roman Catholicism of any Anglican, including priests, who accept the offer. It has the feel of 'gathering the flocks' for end times' about it. And that it comes from the former head of the Inquisition adds to its profundity. I don't even see any requirement for Confession in order for the strays to become regathered within the fold. Just a simple 'yea or nay' will suffice. Is this a continuation John 23rd's ecumenism or is it something else?
Certainly the Constitution will have the immediate effect of dividing the Episcopal. In recent years the CoE has allowed women and gay priests, taken anti-state political positions, liberalized the liturgy and adopted political correctness as its new creed. The question in my mind is whether inclusion within Roman Catholicism will change nature of The Church or change the Reformation. The Pope is certainly aware of this conundrum and yet has committed himself to making the offer nonetheless- and in no small way- but in the highest possible method- an Apostolic Constitution.
Ecumenical or divisive? Big question. Does Benedict know something we don't know? Is he contemplating the prophecies of St. Malachi? I've wondered about this from the very moment he chose his papal name. The Olivine. Next to last...
Sure. Religion in general is irrelevant. Maybe Benedict is offering an 'olive branch,' or maybe the Olivine has other motivations. I personally feel that the Apostolic Constitution was inspired by the immanence of Catholic Esoteric eschatology having to do with Saint Malachi and Fatima. You are aware, I'm sure, that Benedict was appointed Chief of the Inquisition by John Paul in the early 80's some time. And so to make this offer without the requisite Confession speaks very loudly of a hidden agenda. That's really all I'm saying. But maybe I find greater meaning in RC esoterica than you. Or maybe I dropped too much acid in my day!
So, the question is: is the prophecy correct, is it manifest destiny or is it Benedict's (and the Catholic church's hierarchy) knowledge of the prophecy that is propelling him to these actions?
It can be both. It's the same principle as Christ self-consciously fulfilling the messianic prophesies abroad during the first century. In other words- being conjoined to participate in a preordained passion even to the extent of furthering it (straightening the paths.) This is Benedict's own dilemma. He needs to be both author and actor at the same time. The Olivine must extend the olive branch in order to ordain the preordained. I don't believe this set of circumstances has anything to do with the 'Mayan prophecies' concerning the 2012 hysteria. It's seated deeply in Catholic eschatology and telos. I think what we're watching is ritual- the grand Eucharist- that the Pope regards as existential necessity. Is there truly an arcane meaning to it all? Well- I guess that was my question in bringing up the matter of Benedict's Apostolic Constitution here. To me it's a further piece of a great puzzle being assembled before the eyes of anyone paying attention to it.
It's one of those great historical ironies that the inheritor of the Inquisition should be the Olivine- bearer of forgiveness- at one and the same time. That's an irony not lost on me. History works in surprising and mysterious ways. And regardless of whether the last act of this passion is ordained or contrived it's meaningful to me as a foreshadow of the death of novelty. That's all prophesy is, in truth, a foreshadowing. How can it be that the future casts a shadow on the present doings and goings? Can we conclude other than that all of time is entangled in the most exquisite manor? To confront that is to encounter the Absurd. Revelation is, then, always available. What's the gain of that? That's anyone's question. Maybe it's just a matter of the collision of free electrons in empty space sharing choice thoughts. Is that enough? Possibly not- but it may be all we have. Little plaints in the void...