A Roman curiosity. . .

There was a time when I thought that if Francis were gone and someone more theologically orthodox and astute were named pope, well, things would improve.  If they are going to improve, the whole enterprise is taking too much time and seems to pay too much attention to continuity with Francis.  I fear that Leo is losing the moment.  While I do not have a horse in this race, I am certain that it benefits the whole of orthodox Christianity when we have a more Biblically focused, theologically consistent voice coming from Rome.  That said, you also must judge a man by his deeds as well.

Some of his appointments as bishops and cardinals are suspect.  They seem to fit the Francis mode more than BXVI or JPII.  I hope I am proven wrong.  In addition, he is taking too much time to replace people who need to go (can anyone say Tucho or Roche?).  Furthermore, he is giving mixed signals -- no, "Traditiones Custodes" will not be rescinded or abrogated but ask me and I will give you generous permission to say the Latin Mass.  No, some of the right wing priests who have been kept in limbo or even laicized will not be treated better but the left wing like Fr. Rainbow Martin will not be disciplined either.  He looks good in his vestments but then appoints the kind of bishops Frankie would have approved of while allowing Cardinal Burke to Latin it up in St. Peter's.  What does this mean?  Who knows?

He still talks the synodal way but what does he mean by it?  Bishop Martin speaks of the synodal way as well but acts like a petty dictator by dictating that altar rails have to go along with ad orientum posture at the altar and a host of other things.  Why?  Does Leo also believe that the biggest threat to Rome today is in the form of someone who kneels to receive Communion or likes reverence?  He insists that the Mass must be celebrated reverently and with due somberness and then says nothing about those who violate it all and make it a joke.  

I will admit that I pay attention to what is going in Rome.  Some Lutherans would think this foolish but the cause of truth and the pursuit of doctrine fully consistent with Scripture benefits from church leaders who know the score -- no matter where they reside.  Luther did not react to Rome because He had written off Rome and did not care but as a true believer who has honest contempt with those who are not true believers.  The most dangerous thing of all in any church is orthodoxy in doctrine and practice.  The most powerful force of all is indignation -- when those who have high expectations are disappointed.  Certainly that was Luther's case after visiting Rome and finding it not a city set on a hill but cesspool of immorality and expediency.  Those who smugly delight in Rome's foolishness or failings are themselves fools and doomed to failure.  I want to believe in the idea of Rome even if their practice is screwy.  I want to believe in the idea of Lutheranism even if our follow through is a mess.  The path of success suffers from all heresy, from all immorality, and from all flawed practice.  The answer to the wrong piety is not no piety at all.  So even if I am not planning to become Roman, I can see my way to hoping that Rome gets its house in order and Leo makes more than surface moves in that direction.  An honest Lutheran hopes that every jurisdiction will read the Scriptures and order its doctrine and life by that living Word.  None of us is benefited by the other's failures but all of us are helped by the truth of God's Word rightly proclaimed.  If Leo is not going to go there, the goal of a renewed and faithful Lutheranism will not be helped by it but it will be hurt.