Rorate Caeli

Archbishop Ranjith's address in the Netherlands:
FULL TEXT

______________________________
FAITH, OBEDIENCE AND THEOLOGY


Challenges to the Mission of the Church today


Your Excellency, the Apostolic Nuncio Mons. François Bacquè
Your Lordship,
Dear Rev. Fathers,
President and Members of the Dutch Association for Latin Liturgy,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am overjoyed to have had the opportunity to celebrate the Holy Mass and address this distinguished gathering on the occasion of the Annual General Meeting of your Association. I thank you for the kind invitation extended to me.

The Holy Father in his post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation [Sacramentum Caritatis] called for the more frequent use of Latin as well as Gregorian Chant in the Liturgy recommending that even the lay faithful be helped to recite common prayers and sing parts of the Liturgy in Latin [no. 62]. It is in this happy situation for those of you who love this language and its use in the Liturgy that I have come to spend this day with you encouraging you in your efforts. And making use of this opportunity I thought of speaking to you today about a matter of great importance for the life of the Church – Faith and Obedience in the study of Theology and in the sense of discipline which should accompany the mission of the Church.

It is not a surprise that the writers of the Holy Scriptures and, precisely, the traditions behind the Genesis story of Creation and Fall visualize the fall of man in terms of an act of pride and disobedience. It leads man to become a slave of his own instincts seeking for himself power and domination and moves him not only to jealousy and murder [Gen 4: 1 - 16] but also for equality with God. He becomes his own god and wishes to build a tower “with its top reaching heaven” [Gen 11: 4]. The first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis then, is the story of disobedience and estrangement from God. But it does not end there. God in his great mercy does not abandon man to his destiny of self destruction which he had set for himself. He calls and establishes in the faith of Abraham the beginnings of the history of salvation. Abraham responds by deep faith and obedience and thus becomes the father of the people of Israel, God’s chosen instrument for the salvation of the world [Deut. 7: 7-8]. And as the letter to the Hebrews states – “it was by faith that Abraham obeyed the call to set out for a country that was the inheritance given to him and his descendants and that he set out without knowing where he was going” [Heb. 11: 8]. The author of the letter then sets out into a journey of discovery of the faith and obedience to God of all his servants through Abraham to Moses and Jesus ending up with the exhortation: “let us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, who leads us in our faith and brings it to perfection; for the sake of the joy which laid ahead of him, he endured the Cross, disregarding the shame of it and has taken his seat at the right of God’s throne” [Hebrews 12: 2]. Salvation history, then, is a story of faith and obedience.

The covenant ratified on mount Sinai [Ex. 24: 3-16] establishes once again that relationship between God and humanity through the obedience of Israel. It is sealed by the book of laws that God gives his people – the Torah.

Living out the laws of that covenant then marks the entire history of the People of Israel, blessings being the result of obedience and sufferings the result of the opposite attitude. Obedience is demanded both at the level of the individual and of the people and blessings or disaster is shown to flow out naturally on the basis of their response, individually or collectively. In truth, obedience becomes the expression of a response of love towards God by the people of Israel. It is not so much a covenant of a “give and take” form as was prevalent at that time in the treaties of the Hittites with their suzerain states but a treaty of an intimate union of love between God and Israel visualized as one between a Father [mother] and his [her] Son [Ex. 4: 22; Is. 49: 14-15; Jer. 3: 19; 31: 9, 20; Hos. 11: 1-11] or Husband and wife [Is. 54: 5-8; Jer. 2: 2; 3: 20; Hos. 2: 4-25]. The formula which signifies the covenant is modeled on the formula which seals a marriage – “I will be your God, you will be my people” [Song of Songs 7: 11]. The demands placed on the people and on God reflect essentially not just a spirit of obedience and service but much deeper virtues of love and fidelity [Ps. 117: 1-2]. Besides, it is God who makes the first move. He loved humanity first [Deus Caritas Est 1]. Infidelity in the forms of idolatry and moral disobedience lead the people not only to suffering and death but also to slavery and exile in foreign lands. Besides, the right to land is a consequence of Israel’s faithfulness to the covenant. And so invasion and exile are the fruits of disobedience. The entire deuteronomic reform and the emergence of prophecy are consequences of the constant allurement and attraction Israel felt to idolatry, infidelity and insincerity driving the people away from God.

Jesus and the new Torah

As Pope Benedict explains in “Jesus of Nazareth”, Jesus completed the formation of the people of God by both lifting the veil that excluded the gentiles from entering into communion with God and introducing the new Torah of love, which is the law of the more perfect and eternal covenant with words of authority – “but I say to you…” [Mt. 5: 22 et al]. The people of this more perfect covenant superseded all boundaries, a universal communion – Jews and gentiles together – bonded in and through him in the free and conscious living out of the law of love which he gave them and ratified with His own blood – “this cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you” [Lc. 22: 20]. States the Pope “this restructuring of the social order finds its basis and its justification in Jesus’ claim that he, with his community of disciples, forms the origin and center of the new Israel”, [Jesus of Nazareth, Doubleday, New York 2007, p. 114] and that “he teaches not as the rabbis do, but as one who has authority” [Mt. 7: 28 et al] [ibid p. 102]. And this authority came to him by the fact that he indeed was the Messiah, the anointed one of God.

Thus faithfulness to Jesus and the living out of the new Torah which he gave his disciples becomes the essential condition for belonging to the community of the new covenant – the sole gateway to the Kingdom of God. States the Pope – “in Jesus’ case it is not the universally binding adherence to the Torah that forms the new family. Rather it is adherence to Jesus himself, to his Torah” [ibid p. 115].

And Jesus wants his disciples to personally follow his own example in not only accepting him but above all in living out the way he lived, following him on the Cross. “If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me” [Mc. 8: 34]. In the case of the old alliance it was faithfulness to the Torah that assured the individual or the community its sense of belonging to the Lord and being under his loving care. But in the case of the new alliance it is not so much a matter of adherence to a law as much as to a person: Jesus. Loving him, following him and imitating him was the essential condition. In fact, Jesus’ commandment of love – “love one another as I have loved you” [Jn. 13: 34] is a commandment that urges all to follow his own example of love. Love is not what we feel it is, but the way He lived it out. And Jesus did live out his love for humanity so profoundly and selflessly that he laid down his life for them – “no one can have a greater love than to lay down his life for his friends” [Jn. 15: 13] or “I lay down my life for my sheep” [Jn. 10: 11]. It is not a life taken by others as much as is laid down by Jesus himself.

St. Paul quoting an ancient Confessional Hymn of the Church portrays the entire life of Christ as a living out of the twin moments of the loving and voluntary self emptying by Jesus and his glorification at the hands of God which signifies his baptism. For him, Jesus, the Christ, “although he was in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation and took upon himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself becoming obedient unto death, even death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth and things under the earth. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father” [Phil. 2: 5 -11]. The key phrase in the hymn consists of the words “obedient unto death” [vs. 8]. The Greek verb “hupekoos” used here is to be understood as the opposite of that act of disobedience of Adam. St. Paul himself states so – “for as by one man’s disobedience [Parakohes] many were made sinners, so by the obedience [hupakohes] of one, shall many be made righteous” [Rom. 5: 19].

The theological dictionary of the new testament by Gerhard Kittel states that “hupakohe” in general “is measured by the attitude of obedience to God” [p. 224 vol. 1]. St. Paul places it in opposition to “hamartia” – sin. States St. Paul “you can be the slaves either of sin [hamartia] which leads to death or of obedience [hupakohe] which leads to righteousness” [Rom. 6: 16].

The idea is clear. Jesus’ whole life which is the fulfillment of the history of salvation is one of sheer obedience to the Father as seen and understood in the background of the disobedience of Adam. Says the letter to the Galatians, the Lord Jesus “gave himself for our sins to liberate us from this present wicked world, in accordance with the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever” [Gal. 1: 4]. Indeed Jesus did state so – “I have come from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me” [Jn. 6: 38] or “I seek to do not my own will, but the will of him who sent me” [Jn. 5: 30]. He understands his mission on earth as the realization of the type of obedience required by God so that his divine kingship may be realized on earth. In and through Jesus and the Church, then, God enters human history in the fullest sense and His Kingdom is thus established definitively. This Church or the community of “the called” is the mystical presence of Jesus in history and the manifestation of God’s Kingdom on earth. And as Lumen Gentium states it “subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor” [LG 8]. And again, “Although many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside of her visible structure, these elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, posses an inner dynamism toward Catholic unity” [ibid].

The Church thus exists in order to expand the process of sanctification and liberation which Jesus brought to fulfillment through his obedience to the Father. Its mission is precisely that of imitating Jesus in his great act of obedience to the Father, so that God may re-enter human reality and ennoble all of it in the creation of the “new heaven and the new earth” [II Pet. 3: 13] – that the Kingdom of God may be established definitely and fully in the world. The Church becomes thus the locus of humanity’s profound sense of obedience to God. It is in this way that God continues to re-enter human reality and transform and ennoble it. Obedience in the imitation of Jesus should not be seen merely as a burden or the acceptance and the faithful implementation of a law or norm but rather as the way to sanctification and to the rendering sacred of all human and cosmic reality.

This mission is indeed something sacred and liturgical. The famous exhortation of St. Paul on turning our lives into a sacrifice [logiké latreia] acceptable to God states: “I urge you, then, brothers, remembering the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, dedicated and acceptable to God; that is the kind of worship for you, as sensible people. Do not model your behaviour on the contemporary world, but let the renewing of your minds transform you, so that you may discern for yourselves what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and mature” [Rom. 12: 1-2].

It is this same sense of obedience and discipline in the life of a Christian whatever his or her role in the Church be, that gives effective credibility to what Jesus represents: a life of total and self negating subjection to the will of the Father. In a world dominated by egoism and its resultant corollaries of individualism, subjectivism and relativism, where in the name of liberty any vestige of authority is rejected as a burden and an obstacle to human freedom, the Church has to manifest itself as the community of God, consisting of those in whose life the acceptance and submission to the will of God and a noble sense of unity ought to shine out. If the world visualizes freedom as “freedom from”, the Church has to firmly reflect freedom as “freedom for”.

If the world wishes to become a place where confusing and contradictory philosophies, values and a cacophony of noisy and disorderly political orientations make human life neurotic, the Church has to be the sign of truth, good and beauty which in their most supreme form reflect God’s own essence. If the world has become the market place of greed and the reduction of human kind to an object of consumism, then the Church has to become the community that extols God’s own providence and reflects a sense of detachment and respect especially for those who become the victims of such greed; If the world becomes the arena of moral laxism, hedonism and the subjugation of mankind to transient and empty allures, then the Church has to be the sign of the purity and holiness of God.

In other words the Church cannot be the arena of confusion, philosophical or moral relativism, sophistry and casuistic dilution of the revealed truth which is the foundation of its Credo, the Word of God as revealed in the Sacred Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church and interpreted by the official magisterium of the Church and open dissent or public debate even in the name of the freedom of theological research. My mind goes back to the story of the construction or shall we say the attempted construction of the Tower of Babel. Its constructors felt confident that they could scale the heavens with their own resources and strength without God. Hasn’t that same spirit re-appeared perhaps in a more sophisticated form in the world and the Church today? There are some people who even claim that they make the Church as if the Church is a creation of us humans.

But the Church is not what we make. It is what Jesus established and continues to nourish and sustain. Says Lumen Gentium “Christ, the one mediator, established and ceaselessly sustains here on earth His Holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as a visible structure. Through her He communicates truth and grace to all” [LG 8]. It is thus, even in its visible manifestation, a divine institution which is called to live and make real in the world God’s own holiness, truth and beauty as well as the harmony and peace that comes from Him alone. For, as St. Paul stated, “God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints” [1 Cor. 14: 33].

The Church is not an association or federation or a democracy made up of the faithful. It is the mystical body of Christ with its own inner life that comes from Christ, who is its supreme and invisible head. It has its visible structure which is not to be separated from the mystical. The Council states “but the society furnished with hierarchical agencies and the mystical body of Christ are not to be considered two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things. Rather they form one inter-locked reality which is comprised of a divine and a human element” [LG 8]. The Council then goes on to compare this mystical divine – human interlocking with the mystery of the incarnation itself [cfr LG 8]. It is, as the Council further confirms, the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church referring thus to its uniqueness, its singular vocation, its universal nature and its missionary dimension.

The hierarchical nature of the Church as the same document confirms does not come from a bottom to top orientation but the other way around. Christ is the supreme shepherd and spouse of the Church. He established it on the foundation of the apostles and, as Lumen Gentium further clarifies, “after the resurrection our Saviour handed her over to Peter to be shepherded [Jn. 21: 17], commissioning him and the other apostles to propagate and govern her [cf Mt. 28: 18 ff]. Her he erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth” [1 Tim. 3: 11]” [LG 8]. And as the Church teaches, through apostolic succession and the power to bind and loose, the College of Apostles with Peter as its head is succeeded by the College of Bishops who with the Pope who “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the Bishops and of the whole company of the faithful” [LG 23] becomes the hierarchical leadership of the Church. Lumen Gentium 22 states further “the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” and further “the College of Bishops, has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head” [LG 22]. Naturally as Jesus often expressed all authority in the Church has to be exercised in a pastoral sense – in that loving and caring as well as gently guiding way of the good shepherd and not of those who seek to Lord it over [cfr 22: 25-26].

Provided that authority in the Church is understood and exercised as a service, rather than a means of domination in an egoistic sense, it is essential that unity not only in its communitarian form but also in its direction be preserved and the effective fulfillment of its mission be facilitated. Disagreement is possible but it should not be allowed to deteriorate and become a cause of division, hostility and a sign of mundane frivolity. As we see in that singular reflection of the early Christian Community at the first Council of Jerusalem [Acts 15: 6-29] even if the issue at stake, the question of the uncircumcised, was seen differently by them, they all agreed to settle for a united position after prayer and listening to the different views of Paul, Barnabas, James and Simon Peter. The voice of Peter was decisive here and James agreed with him. The cause of unity was served best that way. It was a debate among brothers and not in the fora of the roman civil or religious courts or in the aeropagus of Athens. The Council of Jerusalem was an experience of communion in which the voice of the apostles, especially of Peter set the pace for whatever was decided.

Disagreement and even debate are part of the search for an understanding of one’s faith given the limitedness of the human mind. Since theology itself is “fides querens intellectum” and is based on the centrality of faith, “credo ut intelligam”, sin can cause the search for that understanding to become ruffled and muddy. For faith cannot co-exist with sin and intellectual arrogance. It requires listening, silence, and most of all prayer which prepares the heart and mind to receive God’s word. Where such an attitude does not prevail, disagreement can lead the seeker to be a prisoner of his own thoughts, feel stimulated by considerations of self aggrandizement, pride and lead to open dissent which would be harmful to the faith. It will cause just the opposite effect and can lead one on to the path of disobedience and falling prey to the machinations of the evil one. The example of the Council of Jerusalem is important here – once Simon Peter set the pace, the debate took a decisive turn towards identifying an acceptable solution which is in the best interests of the mission of the Church. The Acts of the Apostles states that “and when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them…” [Acts 15: 7] and surprisingly the Acts states that at the end of Peter’s discourse –“all the multitude kept silence” [Acts 15: 12] and James seconded what Peter said ending the debate with a decision which was good for all.

Besides, since the Church is a spiritual communion enriched by the life of Grace that flows from Christ especially in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, what should be of foremost concern for all its members is to reflect and live that intimate communion with the Lord, and in him with all the brothers and sisters, as fruitfully and as truly as possible. Every effort then ought to be made not to demean the inner dynamism of the Church through our selfishness and sinfulness especially through intellectual pride and arrogance. Rendering glory to God and edifying the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, in order to make her carry on her mission effectively should be more important.

It is here that a deep spirit of self denial, sense of humility before the mystery of God’s ways and an awareness that the life of Christ is somehow present and active in the Church and in the person of the Vicar of Christ ought to animate all of us, especially the bishops, priests, the religious, the theologians and experts in the various ecclesial disciplines. We ought to always remember the words of Isaiah – “who was it who measured the water of the sea in the hollow of his hands and calculated the heavens to the nearest inch; gauged the dust of the earth to the nearest bushel, weighed the mountains on scales, the hills in a balance? Who directed Yahweh, what counselor could have instructed him? Whom has he consulted to enlighten him, to instruct on the path of judgment, to teach him knowledge and show him how to understand?” [Is. 40: 12 - 14]. Speaking of wisdom, Job exclaims – “God alone understands her path and knows where she is to be found .... Then he said to human beings, wisdom? – that is the fear of the Lord; intelligence? – avoidance of evil” [Job 28: 23-28].

It is most unfortunate to note, that often enough we tend to forget that there is a far superior mission in our hands than that of engaging in hair splitting theological debate. Even theology is at the service of faith, it is not its master. Faith comes first and then only theology. For, if there is no faith in theology, it would only be a matter of words and empty noise which would not be effectively contributive towards the mission of the Church.

A so called dissident theologian from Asia recently wrote as follows: “many Christians in Asia are increasingly unable to think of salvation exclusively in terms of the Church or as only mediated by Jesus Christ. We have come to realize that such a view would imply that the vast majority of the people of Asia were not saved. The point has slowly dawned on us that this is not acceptable…. The more I studied the issue of salvation the more I was impressed with the serious inadequacy of the Church’s doctrinal teaching” [Tissa Balasuriya, From Inquisition to Freedom, Continuum 2001, pg.90]. And again – “In Asia where Christianity is a minority religion, we cannot accept that the whole of humanity is in original sin in the sense that they are alienated from God. We cannot accept that all our fore bearers are in hell. Regarding redemption, I have maintained my view that Jesus did not have to pray a price to God to save us, although this interpretation has so impregnated our prayers, hymns and attitudes…. The mission of the Church is not so much to convert to Christianity as to convert all to humanity” [ibid. pg. 105].

What I see here is an approach to theology bereft of that sense of faith and transcendence and geared rather towards the humanization of the society, than its divinization. The mission of Jesus who wished to usher in the era of the reign of God in human life was certainly not limited to making man merely more human. That kind of understanding is very reductive of the great mission of Jesus. Besides, it is rather subjective without any consideration given to the objective sources of divine revelation – the Sacred Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church, of which the latter is rather quickly dismissed as a creation of what is called “Orthodoxy”. The same writer rejects what he calls arbitrary authority and the states, “there comes a point when we must say that eternal destiny is not determined by particular persons or what is called orthodoxy but by one’s conscience and by our relationship to the divine” [ibid. pg. 108]. Both these latter principles are as we can see, of a subjective order.

The rejection of objective revelation places such theologizing outside the realms of the faith and once it becomes an object of debate leads to attitudes incompatible with the noble spiritual mission of theology which is that of “edifying the Church” [cfr 1 Cor. 14: 4]. It is good to note here that St. Paul warned Timothy to beware of “anyone who teaches anything different and does not keep to the sound teaching which is that of our Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrine which is in accordance with true religion, is proud and has no understanding, but rather a weakness for questioning everything and arguing about words” [1 Tim. 6: 3 - 4]. This type of attitude can influence all if care is not exercised in always keeping before us an attitude of humility in the face of the great mysteries of God.

Today more than ever the Church needs men and women who portray in their lives that sense of humility and self negation as well as obedience to God’s will, which is manifested in a special way through the Church and its visible head, the Roman Pontiff. Discussion and debate in a fraternal way, yes, but if it does not in the end lead to a spirit of obedience in the service of unity then it divides and can only be interpreted as a manifestation of the intent of the evil one to disturb and retard the noble mission of Christ. Even those wearing ecclesiastical purple or red are not exempt from the tempter’s enchantments.

We see this happening unfortunately quite often nowadays. It is not a rare feature to see the emergence of ecclesiastics in responsible positions who are intrumentalised by the media and forces inimical to the Church, to make statements critical of the directions from the Roman Pontiff or from the dicastries that carry out his decisions. Others take the attitude of ignoring or disregarding such directions and so great harm in procured for the mission of the Church – especially through the sense of loss and confusion brought about by such attitudes on the faithful.

St. Paul tells us how he changed when he met Jesus on the way to Damascus – no longer was he the proud and zealous Jew who persecuted the Church – he states “what things were gain for me, those I counted loss for Christ, yea doubtless, and I count all things but less for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and so count them but dung, that I may win Christ” [Phil. 3: 7-8]. And again – “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me” [Gal. 2: 20]. What counts for him is not so much who he is or what he thinks but what he has become – for Christ owns him, and lives in him. It is this new life that made him, Christ’s apostle, who in turn is being called to, like St. John the Baptist, let his personality recede to the background allowing Christ to shine out in his life.

This I feel should be our own attitude especially in these troubled days – “he must increase, I must decrease” [Jn. 3: 30]. We should pray the Lord to keep us all to be like him who though he was in the form of God assumed the form of a slave and became obedient to the Father accepting to undergo death and death on a Cross.

May He bless and protect the Church!

Thank you.

+Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith
Secretary,
Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments,
Vatican City.
6th October 2007

____________________________
TEXT KINDLY PROVIDED BY
The Association for Latin Liturgy (in the Netherlands)
Vereniging voor Latijnse Liturgie

19 comments:

Keep it coming Rome ! said...

Truly amazing stuff ! I can hardly believe me eyes on this one ! I hope we hear a lot more of this from now on !

Fr.John said...

Archbishop Ranjith may God Bless you! Keep it coming!

JHQuinn said...

While being thrilled at the words of Acbp Ranjith, especially those posted earlier that apparently were comments made after the formal speech, or at least an addendum to the printed text, I am always disturbed by authors who fail to capitalize the pronouns He, Him and His when speaking of Our Lord.

His words are even more impressive when seen in the light of the Acbp speaking, I believe, the heart of the Holy Father.

I know, I'm a nitpicker.

Anonymous said...

Nice words, the challange is for these words to lived in the Church, not to be said. Can the Church do it?, well it has failed to do it since the II Vatican Council ended?

Athanasius said...

Everything depends upon the Holy Father exercising his authority, and making it clear that he must be obeyed.

The announcement by Monsignor Perl that Ecclesia Dei will address the subversions of the Bishops is a step in the right direction. It just needs following up, like everything else.

Anonymous said...

Yes we all know Christ became odedient unto death. Obedience is key in the Christian life.
It is only part of the equation.
REMEMBER obedience has been used to introduce many of the abuses. Pope Paul VI used it to great effect. Bugnini wih his authority used it. Even bad bishops use it to great effect. It seems to me the missing part is tradition. One should not obey if it contradicts tradition. Ultramontanism "when the Pope speaks God speaks" just does not ring true.
It is an exageration and false.
While each individual is not his or her own pope. The Pope must act in accordance with tradition.
Modernism is in effect a reaction to the abuses of ultramontanism. The truth is greater than the Pope and the truth should be taught by the Pope. I think Our Lord's advice to do the good they do and not the evil they do rings true.
The present pope is perhaps the best we have had since Pius XII. I obey because it is consistent with tradition but just do not go along with is in opposition. This is how the Faith is maintained despite deficient Popes and Clergy.

Anonymous said...

Where is the passage where he talks about the bishops instruments of the devil?

job said...

I wonder why the Archbishop did not deliver his talk in Latin to such an organization? It seems that even in the Netherlands people in such a group do not understand spoken Latin, nor speak it themselves. Among other things that is a large 'loose end' in what the Archbishop proposes.

Felipe said...

Dear 02:36 Anon,

What?! Ultramontanism = Catholicism, period! Read "Liberalism is a Sin", a work so often recommended by Msgr Lefebvre, where you'll find that simple equation!

It's because of claims such as yours that sedevacantists accuse traditionalists of Gallicanism and other heresies. Plus, blaming Ultramontanism totally undermines the foundation of all criticism against "Conciliarism", since such criticism is based on the great Ultramontane teachings from Pius IX to Pius XII!

So, personally, I'd rather be a sedevacantist than ever speak against Ultramontanism like you did!

You should realize that even within the FSSPX there are attempts to explain the errors in the teaching of "conciliar popes" without prejudice to sane Ultramontane theology. For instance, by pointing out that the "conciliar magisterium" is not really magisterial for lack of proper intention, which is (in a nutshell) the thesis of Fr. Alvaro Calderon, FSSPX.

Please, never speak against Ultramontanism in your life. I believe even Msgr. Williamson has realized that one cannot possibly accuse of error a hundred years of theology performed under the eyes of the Magisterium! This is simply irreconcilable with the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which is also manifested in the tacit approval of theology manuals.

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Felipe

Anonymous said...

Ultramontanism is totally wrong. Tradition belongs and abides throughout the church. No Pope would ever be so puffed up as to make the changes Paul VI made unless he believed he was the sole owner of tradition and its sole arbiter. The Pope is not a general or despot making orders which we all must follow. The Church is older than Pius X. St Pius X used tradition to show "modernism" was false. Still unless the bishops also love tradition and think and feel responsable to it then we are all sunk.
None the less the means St Pius X used to combat "modernism" were tools that really rely on the Pope as the boss. If tradition was loved throughout the Church then this whole mess we are in would not have happen.
Barking orders does not always work. Cooperation and personal responsability is also crucial.
Liberalism is wrong...so is thinking the pope is the Church.

How then do you justify disobediance to the Pope? Traditionlists and I am one have not towed the party line or followed orders. Ultramontanism consists of the absolute and unquestioning following of everything he does and wants.

But here is the contradiction..if the Pope told you to stick your head in a bucket would you. No!!
That is why the majority of Catholics have gone along with the faulty changes. They follow and blindly. Ultraminism is not enough. We obey the pope because his commands are in accordance with tradition. We provaricate and do not follow if we are asked to do the wrong thing.
Things unheard of throughout tradtion.
I am afraid "I was only following orders" does not really wash before God if we contradict he Faith. And the Faith does not consist entirely and even in a major way of the Pope.

Felipe said...

Dear Anon,

I'm glad you cam e back to answer my last post.

I believe what you consider to be Ultramontanism is only a caricature of it, so we're just not in the same frequency here.

Now, when you say, "We obey the pope because his commands are in accordance with tradition", this sentence at face value is not at all acceptable for a Catholic, even though it might perhaps be possible to interpret it benevolently in light of the current situation.

It is not acceptable because it would be the same as saying that a student should only accept from a teacher that which said student already knows to be true. Which completely ruins the teacher-student relationship! And the Pope is by definition our Teacher in the Faith. Our "Magister".

Of course we should not accept anything against our Faith, no matter from where it comes. "If an angel of heaven" etc.

Therefore, I believe you should rather say, "We obey the pope always, except if his commands happen to contradict the Faith, and Tradition in what is not reformable".

Which is the case of Quanta Cura an Lamentabili, both infallible, of course.

But then you will have to determine further: are you talking about the Pope's commands uttered by him as Pope or as private person only? Because to "stick one's head in a bucket" would not have been a command of the Pope as Pope, but only of the Pope as private man.

Now, with regard to Vatican II, religious liberty, personalism/panchristism, New Mass, New Code of Canon Law, etc., these are surely teachings and commandments/laws that seem to come from the Pope as Pope, so the bucket analogy does not hold at all.

Finally, then, we come to a situation where we have to to try and explain the unheard-of mystery of how such a thing could happen, and the available explanations are only three or four:

-- there is no true contradiction (which as "rad-trads" we both agree is an absurdity of ostrich-like conservatives);

-- it happens (too bad!), and Ultramontanism was wrong (which I'm trying to prove you is equally absurd);

-- there was some kind of defect in the promulgation of these things from above (manifest lack of proper intention due to "pastorality"/liberalism, which makes conciliar Popes not speak as Popes even when they otherwise seem to do so [SSPX theologian Fr Calderon's explanation, if I understand it properly];

-- or else some form of sedevacantism or sedeprivationism, which I find both hard to be defended in a completely satisfying way, but also hard to rule out a priori as quickly as you do).

What I'm trying to say, hence, is that we should study these last two options (traditionalist and "sede") and see which one is better, but never ever have recourse to Ultramontanism-bashing Magisterial minimalism.

Nor of course accept religious liberty and all the other grievous errors coming from above.

Does that make sense?

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Felipe

Anonymous said...

Therefore, I believe you should rather say, "We obey the pope always, except if his commands happen to contradict the Faith, and Tradition in what is not reformable". I agree.

My contention is this. What if one Pope contradicts the policies, teachings and approach of another.
We have witnessed this and are witnessing it.

Yes there is a difference between the personality and prudential decisions of a pope and his use of the keys.
For example I do not think it acceptable to have topless women read during Mass because JPII took part in that in Papua New Guinea.
How do we separate example from authority. Have we not all sighed and thought what stupid ting is the Pope allowing now.
Doesn't the Popes behaviour and policy mean more because of his authority?
When the head of the Church uses authority in a inappropriate way his authority is diminished and confusion occurs.
If authority is exagerated even for a good end then eventually it is used for a bad end.
The Pope and the bishops teach and govern together in tradition. The Pope is the head of the choir of bishops. Yes his say is final.
Yes the Code of Canon law Novus Ordo were issued under his authority. However ony time will tell is they were prudentially right.
My point was ultramontanism as it was manifested in the UK last century exagerates the Popes authority so much that even the Pope might forget he is governed by tradition and should always look back to precedent.
When the authority of the Papacy is used to dismantle as it has been then it is a case of one tradition attacking another.

That is why Catholics contracept and really indulge in so much that contradicts the Faith. They see intuitively that if authority can be used to destroy so much then even they are free to chose to ignore tradition because the Pope has himself.
So when authority that changes so much says no you must not do that they laugh.

This sort of scenario has occured throughout church history. Indulgences sold because the Pope allowed fees to be charged for bishoprics. You know the story. Indulgences given with gifts to the church.
It was an abuse and wrong!
It spawned the Protestant heresy in response.
Again one tool modernism has used to its advantage is authority in th Church.
If the Popes had governed according to tradition then these things would not have happened.

My central point is while I applaud our present Pope it is not just the his use of authority that will bing about restoration. It will be a love of tradition. He cannot order it back. It must be valued by all the Church for its own sake.
There are limitsto the Popes authority and we have all seen these limts transgressed.
My final point. When the Novus Ordo was first offered (in the Sistine Chapel) and the bishops voted in over 2/3 agianst it Paul VI should have not gone further too issue it. He did and this goes against tradition.
Only a Pope with an exagerated sense of his authority could have had the audacity to use his authority to inflict a version of change inconsistent with that asked for at VatII.

Anonymous said...

"Only a Pope with an exagerated sense of his authority could have had the audacity to use his authority to inflict a version of change inconsistent with that asked for at VatII."

Like Paul VI was.

Anonymous said...

Am I living in a "parallel universe"? So it seems. But it is a universe also inhabited by the German, Polish, French, Swiss, American and probably most other bishops -- so I feel that the ground under my feet is quite solid. This is called "reception" not "rebellion" and it is an intrinsic part of Catholic ecclesiology, especially in regard to practical directives for which the bishops have the supreme authority within their dioceses. Archbishop Ranjith's address to the Dutch Latin Mass groupies is, to my mind, a clear expression of fear and frustration. The Motu Proprio has galvanized a tiny group of very opinionated people, who now thrust themselves into the light of common day only to discover that that have as little substantial presence in the real world as ghosts have. If they believe they can rally a substantial number of people to their cause, they are now realizing that it cannot be done by papal fiat, and they are undertaking the long haul of educated the faithful on the neglected glories of the TLM. This is a lost cause, and a waste of time.

Alex said...

The Dutch Latin Liturgy Association previously was itself in fierce opposition against the Tridentine Mass and its adherents. It was 100 % pro Novus Ordo in Latin. So it is ironical he stated this at their Members Conference this year. I must see the consequences substantialize however. And given the fact I saw the poor and simplistic upon a box altar celebrated Novus Ordo "Pontifical Mass" preceding this lecture, which included communion into the hand etc., I know we are still fár from the actual goal of liturgical restoration and the reintroduction of doctrinal orthodoxy even in Rome.

The Dutch Latin Liturgy Association itself is only now, since September 14, in favour of the Motu-Proprio and the Old Rite. Beforehand they were fierce enemies of even all Ecclesia Dei communities, let alone the SOciety of St. Pius X and Mons. Lefebvre.

You can put lipstick upon a pig, but it won't help. (Latin in the Novus Ordo.)

Latin is not our goal. It is about the reverency of the rites and the Eucharistic dogmas.

Anonymous said...

Archbishop Ranjith is a superior man of God. His interviews and speeches always inspire and impress me with their fusion of orthodoxy, faith, openness, and love. I look forward to much more from him. Lets keep him and all our bishop in prayer.
Peace.

john / australia said...

I think what His Excellency Archbishop Ranjith is doing is sounding the alarm bells before its too late. There is a stern message in all of this for the Catholic Hierarchy worldwide. Let us hope and pray they are listening.

Pax.

Anonymous said...

This is called "reception" not "rebellion" and it is an intrinsic part of Catholic ecclesiology, especially in regard to practical directives for which the bishops have the supreme authority within their dioceses.
Excuse me! bishops do not have supreme authority withn their diocese! The Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction. Each bishop is reponsable to the Pope and to God above him.

Anonymous said...

Given the infrmation supplied by some bloggers about the Dutch Latin Mass Society I have changed my mind. I think it appropriate to remind the Dutch Catholics of obedience and its scriptural basis as well as its importance in the Christian life. The Catholic Church in Holland seems to have gone feral.