The Pope received in audience this morning...
Card. Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".
In other Vatican news:
1. Tthe whole text of the Ravenna Document (in English), of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church ("Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church").
2. Today's edition of L'Osservatore Romano includes an article by Father Uwe Michael Lang (link) on the history and relevance of the Latin language in the liturgy of the Latin Church:
_______________________
In other Vatican news:
1. Tthe whole text of the Ravenna Document (in English), of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church ("Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church").
2. Today's edition of L'Osservatore Romano includes an article by Father Uwe Michael Lang (link) on the history and relevance of the Latin language in the liturgy of the Latin Church:
______________________
Uwe Michael Lang traces the historical evolution
of the liturgical language in the Roman rite
Latin
vehicle of unity between peoples and cultures
Uwe Michael Lang
of the liturgical language in the Roman rite
Latin
vehicle of unity between peoples and cultures
Uwe Michael Lang
The cultural and political unity of the Mediterranean world was a providential factor in the diffusion of the Christian faith. In particular, the diffusion of the Greek language in the urban centers of the Roman Empire favored the proclamation of the Gospel. The Greek spoken in the East and West was not the classic idiom, but rather the simplified Koiné, the common language of the various nations of the eastern part of the Mediterranean word: Greece, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt.
Koiné Greek was also the language of the urban proletariat of the West that had emigrated from the eastern territory of the Empire. Rome had become a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural city. In it lived there also lived a permanent Hebrew population, that seems to have spoken principally Greek. The language of the first Christian community in Rome was Greek. This is shown by Paul’s Letter to the Romans and by the first Christian literary works that saw the light in Rome, for example the First Letter of Clement, The Pastor of Hermes and the writings of Justin.
In the first two centuries there arose several popes with Greek names and the Christian burial inscriptions were composed in Greek. During this period, Greek was also the common language of the Roman liturgy. The shift to Latin did not begin in Rome, but in North Africa, where the converts to Christianity were in the majority natives of Latin mother language rather than Greek speaking immigrants. Around the middle of the third century this transition was much advanced: members of the Roman clergy wrote to Cyprian of Carthage in Latin; Latin was also the language in which Novatian compose his De trinitate and other works, citing an existing Latin version of the Bible. No reference is made here to the so-called Apostolic Tradition, attributed to Hippolitus at Rome, because of the uncertainty of its date, its origin, and its very author.
It would seem that in the second half of the third century in flow of immigration from the East to Rome had diminished. This demographic change involved a large increase of the native Latin speakers in the life of the Church at Rome. This notwithstanding Greek continued to be used in the Roman liturgy, at least at a certain level, until the second half of the 4th century; this is evidenced by a Greek citation of the Eucharistic prayer by the Latin author Marius Victorinus, dating back to 360.
Around this period, however, the transition to Latin was in a very advanced phase; this result is most evident by an author otherwise unknown who wrote between 374 and 382, who maintains that the Eucharistic prayer at Rome referred to Melchizedek as summus sacerdos – a title that sounds familiar to us from the latter Canon of the Mass.
The most important resource for the history of the first Latin liturgy is Ambrose of Milan. In his De sacramentis, a series of catechesis for the newly baptized held around 390, he cites exactly the Eucharistic prayer used at that time in Milan. The passages cited are the most ancient form of the prayers Quam oblationem, Qui pridie, Unde et momores, Supra quae, and Supplices te rogamus of the Roman Canon. Elsewhere, in De sacramentis, Ambrose underlines his desire to follow the use of the Roman church in everything; for this reason, we can be certain that this Eucharistic prayer was of Roman origin. Also in the sermon of Zeno, bishop of Verona from 362 to 372, there are traces that attest to the geographic diffusion of this original form of the Roman Canon.
The literal formulation of the prayer cited by Ambrose is not always identical to the Canon that Gregory the Great promulgated at the end of the 4th century and came to us with a few modifications of little importance with respect to the more ancient liturgical books, especially the old Gelesian Sacramentary, dating back to the middle of the 8th century, but retaining an echo of a more ancient liturgical use. In every case the differences between the two texts are by fare less than their similarities, given that the almost three hundred year that intervened between them was a period of intense liturgical development.
The passage from Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy came gradually and was completed under the pontificate of Damasus I (366-384). From that point the liturgy at Rome was celebrated in Latin, with the exception of a few reminders of the more ancient use, as the Kyrie eleison in the Ordo and the readings in Greek in the papal Masses. According to Octavus of Milevi, who wrote around 360, there were more than forty churches in Rome before the edict of Constantine. If this information is correct, it would be reasonable to think that there was a Latin speaking community in the 3rd century, if not before, that celebrated the liturgy in Latin, in particular the reading of Sacred Scripture.
The Psalms were sung in Latin since the original and ancient version used in the liturgy have acquired such an aura of sacredness that Jerome corrected them only with great caution. Then he translated the Psalter from Hebrew not for liturgical use, as he said, but to furnish a text for scholars and discussion. Christine Mohrmann suggests that the baptismal liturgy was translated into Latin from the 2nd century. There can be no certainty on this point, but it is clear that there was a period of transition and that it was long.
Mohrmann introduces the useful distinction between, first, "prayer texts", where the language was above all a means of expression, second, texts, "destined to be read, the Epistle and the Gospel", and, third, "confessional texts", as the Creed. In the prayers texts we find primarily modes of expressing ourselves; in the others primarily forms of communication. Recent research on language and rite, as the work of Catherine Bell, confrim the intuition of Mohrmann that the language has different functions in different parts of the liturgy, that go beyond mere communication or infromation. These theoretical reflections help us to understand the development of the first Roman liturgy: those parts in which the elements of communication were prevalent, as the reading of Scripture, were translated first, while the Eucharistic prayer continued to be recited in Greek for a much longer period.
"Sociolinguistics" – a relatively new academic discipline – warns us to the fact that the selection of one language in respect on another is never a neutral or transparent question. As a consequence it is important to consider the change from Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy in its historical, social and cultural context. The history of antiquity has indicated that the formation of liturgical Latin was part of a wide ranging effort of Christianization of the culture and of the Roman civilization.
In the second half of the 4th century the more influential bishops in Italy, above all Damasus at Rome and Ambrose at Milan, committed to Christianizing the dominant culture of their time. In the city of Rome there was a strong pagan presence and especially the aristocracy continued to adhere to the old customs, even if nominally they had become Christians. Rome was no longer the center of political power, but its culture continued to have roots in the mentality of its elites.
The 4th century is now considered a period of literary rebirth, with a renewed interest in the "classics" of Roman poetry and prose. The emperors of the 4th century cultivated this Latinitas, and there was also a recovery of Latin in the East. With characteristic tenacity, Rome maintained its ancient traditions.
In relation to which, the popes of the late 4th century promoted a project conscious and inclusive of appropriating the symbols of the Roman civilization on part of the Christian faith. Part of this attempt was the appropriation of the public space by means of impressive building projects. After the emperors of the Constantine dynasty had opened the way with the monumental basilicas of the Lateran and Saint Peter, as well as with the basilicas of the cemeteries outside the city walls, the popes continued this building program that transformed Rome into a city dominated by churches.
The most prestigious project was the construction of a new basilica dedicated to Saint Paul on the Via Ostia, by replacing the small Constantinian building with a new church similar in dimensions to Saint Peter. Another important factor was the appropriation of the public time with a cycle of Christian feasts along the course of the year in place of the pagan celebrations (see the Philocalian calender of the year 354). The formation of the Latin liturgy was part of this all inclusive effort to evangelize the classical culture.
Christine Mohrmann recognizes in this the the fortuitous coming together of a rebirth of the language, inspired by the newness of revelation, and of a stylistic traditionalism strongly rooted in the Roman world. Liturgical Latin has the Roman gravitas and avoids the exuberance of the style of prayer of the Eastern Christians, which is found also in the Gallican tradition. This was not an adoption of the "vernacular" language in the liturgy, given that the Latin of the Roman Canon, of the collects and of prefaces of the Mass, were remote from the idiom of the common people. It was a strongly stylized language that an average Christian in Rome of late antiquity would have understood with difficulty, especially considering that the level of education was very low by the standards of today. Moreover the development of the Christian Latinitas would have made the liturgy more accessible to the people of Milan or Rome, but not necessarily to those whose mother tongue was Gothic, Celtic, Iberian or Punic.
It is possible to imagine a western Church with local languages in its liturgy, as in the East, where, joined to the Greek, were also used Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopian. In every way the situation in the West was fundamentally different; the unifying force of the papacy was such that Latin became the sole liturgical language. This was an important factor favoring ecclesiastic, cultural and political cohesion.
The Latin liturgy was from the beginning a sacred language separated from the language of the people; and the distance became greater with the development of the national cultures and languages in Europe, not to mention mission territories. "The first opposition to the Latin language," Christine Mohrmann wrote, "coincided with the end of Medieval Latin as a "second living language", that was replaced by a truly ‘dead’ language, the Latin of the Humanists. And the opposition of our days to liturgical Latin has something to do with weakening of the study of Latin – and with the tendency toward ‘secularism’ "("The Ever-Recurring Problem of Language in the Church", in Études sur le latin des chrétiens, IV, Rome, 1977).
The Second Vatican Council wished to resolve the question by extending the use of the vernacular in the liturgy, above all in the readings (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 36, n. 2). At the same time, it underlined that "the use of the Latin language … is to be preserved in the Latin rite" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 36, n. 1; cfr also art. 54). The council Father did not imagine that the sacred language of the western Church would be replaced by the vernacular.
The linguistic fragmentation of Catholic worship in the post-conciliar period has been pushed so far that the majority of the faithful today can only with difficulty recite a Pater noster together with one another, as can be noted in the international reunions in Rome or Lourdes. In an epoch marked by great mobility and globalization, a common liturgical language could serve as a vehicle of unity between peoples and cultures, besides the fact that liturgical Latin is an unique spiritual treasure that has nourished the life of the Church for many centuries. Finally, it is necessary to preserve the sacred character of the liturgical language in the vernacular translation, as the instruction of the Holy See Liturgiam authenticam noted in 2001.
Koiné Greek was also the language of the urban proletariat of the West that had emigrated from the eastern territory of the Empire. Rome had become a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural city. In it lived there also lived a permanent Hebrew population, that seems to have spoken principally Greek. The language of the first Christian community in Rome was Greek. This is shown by Paul’s Letter to the Romans and by the first Christian literary works that saw the light in Rome, for example the First Letter of Clement, The Pastor of Hermes and the writings of Justin.
In the first two centuries there arose several popes with Greek names and the Christian burial inscriptions were composed in Greek. During this period, Greek was also the common language of the Roman liturgy. The shift to Latin did not begin in Rome, but in North Africa, where the converts to Christianity were in the majority natives of Latin mother language rather than Greek speaking immigrants. Around the middle of the third century this transition was much advanced: members of the Roman clergy wrote to Cyprian of Carthage in Latin; Latin was also the language in which Novatian compose his De trinitate and other works, citing an existing Latin version of the Bible. No reference is made here to the so-called Apostolic Tradition, attributed to Hippolitus at Rome, because of the uncertainty of its date, its origin, and its very author.
It would seem that in the second half of the third century in flow of immigration from the East to Rome had diminished. This demographic change involved a large increase of the native Latin speakers in the life of the Church at Rome. This notwithstanding Greek continued to be used in the Roman liturgy, at least at a certain level, until the second half of the 4th century; this is evidenced by a Greek citation of the Eucharistic prayer by the Latin author Marius Victorinus, dating back to 360.
Around this period, however, the transition to Latin was in a very advanced phase; this result is most evident by an author otherwise unknown who wrote between 374 and 382, who maintains that the Eucharistic prayer at Rome referred to Melchizedek as summus sacerdos – a title that sounds familiar to us from the latter Canon of the Mass.
The most important resource for the history of the first Latin liturgy is Ambrose of Milan. In his De sacramentis, a series of catechesis for the newly baptized held around 390, he cites exactly the Eucharistic prayer used at that time in Milan. The passages cited are the most ancient form of the prayers Quam oblationem, Qui pridie, Unde et momores, Supra quae, and Supplices te rogamus of the Roman Canon. Elsewhere, in De sacramentis, Ambrose underlines his desire to follow the use of the Roman church in everything; for this reason, we can be certain that this Eucharistic prayer was of Roman origin. Also in the sermon of Zeno, bishop of Verona from 362 to 372, there are traces that attest to the geographic diffusion of this original form of the Roman Canon.
The literal formulation of the prayer cited by Ambrose is not always identical to the Canon that Gregory the Great promulgated at the end of the 4th century and came to us with a few modifications of little importance with respect to the more ancient liturgical books, especially the old Gelesian Sacramentary, dating back to the middle of the 8th century, but retaining an echo of a more ancient liturgical use. In every case the differences between the two texts are by fare less than their similarities, given that the almost three hundred year that intervened between them was a period of intense liturgical development.
The passage from Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy came gradually and was completed under the pontificate of Damasus I (366-384). From that point the liturgy at Rome was celebrated in Latin, with the exception of a few reminders of the more ancient use, as the Kyrie eleison in the Ordo and the readings in Greek in the papal Masses. According to Octavus of Milevi, who wrote around 360, there were more than forty churches in Rome before the edict of Constantine. If this information is correct, it would be reasonable to think that there was a Latin speaking community in the 3rd century, if not before, that celebrated the liturgy in Latin, in particular the reading of Sacred Scripture.
The Psalms were sung in Latin since the original and ancient version used in the liturgy have acquired such an aura of sacredness that Jerome corrected them only with great caution. Then he translated the Psalter from Hebrew not for liturgical use, as he said, but to furnish a text for scholars and discussion. Christine Mohrmann suggests that the baptismal liturgy was translated into Latin from the 2nd century. There can be no certainty on this point, but it is clear that there was a period of transition and that it was long.
Mohrmann introduces the useful distinction between, first, "prayer texts", where the language was above all a means of expression, second, texts, "destined to be read, the Epistle and the Gospel", and, third, "confessional texts", as the Creed. In the prayers texts we find primarily modes of expressing ourselves; in the others primarily forms of communication. Recent research on language and rite, as the work of Catherine Bell, confrim the intuition of Mohrmann that the language has different functions in different parts of the liturgy, that go beyond mere communication or infromation. These theoretical reflections help us to understand the development of the first Roman liturgy: those parts in which the elements of communication were prevalent, as the reading of Scripture, were translated first, while the Eucharistic prayer continued to be recited in Greek for a much longer period.
"Sociolinguistics" – a relatively new academic discipline – warns us to the fact that the selection of one language in respect on another is never a neutral or transparent question. As a consequence it is important to consider the change from Greek to Latin in the Roman liturgy in its historical, social and cultural context. The history of antiquity has indicated that the formation of liturgical Latin was part of a wide ranging effort of Christianization of the culture and of the Roman civilization.
In the second half of the 4th century the more influential bishops in Italy, above all Damasus at Rome and Ambrose at Milan, committed to Christianizing the dominant culture of their time. In the city of Rome there was a strong pagan presence and especially the aristocracy continued to adhere to the old customs, even if nominally they had become Christians. Rome was no longer the center of political power, but its culture continued to have roots in the mentality of its elites.
The 4th century is now considered a period of literary rebirth, with a renewed interest in the "classics" of Roman poetry and prose. The emperors of the 4th century cultivated this Latinitas, and there was also a recovery of Latin in the East. With characteristic tenacity, Rome maintained its ancient traditions.
In relation to which, the popes of the late 4th century promoted a project conscious and inclusive of appropriating the symbols of the Roman civilization on part of the Christian faith. Part of this attempt was the appropriation of the public space by means of impressive building projects. After the emperors of the Constantine dynasty had opened the way with the monumental basilicas of the Lateran and Saint Peter, as well as with the basilicas of the cemeteries outside the city walls, the popes continued this building program that transformed Rome into a city dominated by churches.
The most prestigious project was the construction of a new basilica dedicated to Saint Paul on the Via Ostia, by replacing the small Constantinian building with a new church similar in dimensions to Saint Peter. Another important factor was the appropriation of the public time with a cycle of Christian feasts along the course of the year in place of the pagan celebrations (see the Philocalian calender of the year 354). The formation of the Latin liturgy was part of this all inclusive effort to evangelize the classical culture.
Christine Mohrmann recognizes in this the the fortuitous coming together of a rebirth of the language, inspired by the newness of revelation, and of a stylistic traditionalism strongly rooted in the Roman world. Liturgical Latin has the Roman gravitas and avoids the exuberance of the style of prayer of the Eastern Christians, which is found also in the Gallican tradition. This was not an adoption of the "vernacular" language in the liturgy, given that the Latin of the Roman Canon, of the collects and of prefaces of the Mass, were remote from the idiom of the common people. It was a strongly stylized language that an average Christian in Rome of late antiquity would have understood with difficulty, especially considering that the level of education was very low by the standards of today. Moreover the development of the Christian Latinitas would have made the liturgy more accessible to the people of Milan or Rome, but not necessarily to those whose mother tongue was Gothic, Celtic, Iberian or Punic.
It is possible to imagine a western Church with local languages in its liturgy, as in the East, where, joined to the Greek, were also used Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopian. In every way the situation in the West was fundamentally different; the unifying force of the papacy was such that Latin became the sole liturgical language. This was an important factor favoring ecclesiastic, cultural and political cohesion.
The Latin liturgy was from the beginning a sacred language separated from the language of the people; and the distance became greater with the development of the national cultures and languages in Europe, not to mention mission territories. "The first opposition to the Latin language," Christine Mohrmann wrote, "coincided with the end of Medieval Latin as a "second living language", that was replaced by a truly ‘dead’ language, the Latin of the Humanists. And the opposition of our days to liturgical Latin has something to do with weakening of the study of Latin – and with the tendency toward ‘secularism’ "("The Ever-Recurring Problem of Language in the Church", in Études sur le latin des chrétiens, IV, Rome, 1977).
The Second Vatican Council wished to resolve the question by extending the use of the vernacular in the liturgy, above all in the readings (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 36, n. 2). At the same time, it underlined that "the use of the Latin language … is to be preserved in the Latin rite" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 36, n. 1; cfr also art. 54). The council Father did not imagine that the sacred language of the western Church would be replaced by the vernacular.
The linguistic fragmentation of Catholic worship in the post-conciliar period has been pushed so far that the majority of the faithful today can only with difficulty recite a Pater noster together with one another, as can be noted in the international reunions in Rome or Lourdes. In an epoch marked by great mobility and globalization, a common liturgical language could serve as a vehicle of unity between peoples and cultures, besides the fact that liturgical Latin is an unique spiritual treasure that has nourished the life of the Church for many centuries. Finally, it is necessary to preserve the sacred character of the liturgical language in the vernacular translation, as the instruction of the Holy See Liturgiam authenticam noted in 2001.
________________
Translation provided by Father Anthony Forte.
Translation provided by Father Anthony Forte.
Good news in Catholic-Orthodox talks? Not exactly....
This has been known for a few days, but more details are reported by Marco Politi in today's issue of La Repubblica:
The Pope is the 'first among the Patriarchs', Rome is the 'first See', the Church of Rome 'presides in charity'. A joint document of the Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches explicitly acknowledges definitively and in an unequivocal way the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, easing the way for the reunification of Catholics and Orthodox, divided by the schism of 1054.
The reserved document is the result of the October meeting at Ravenna, where a Catholic delegation presided by Cardinal Kasper and a pan-Orthodox delegation, guided by Metropolitan Zizioulas, of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, established the bases for a deepening of the questions left to be resolved in order to reestablish unity.
Good. But the representatives of the largest Eastern Church not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome left the discussions in Ravenna. A representative of the Moscow Patriarchate, Bishop Hilarion, explained the problems to Interfax:
Metropolitan John [Zizioulas] of Pergamon [of the Constantinople Patriarchate] as co-president of the joint commission for Orthodox-Catholic dialogue is responsible for derailing the dialogue. His comments and the final text of the document work on which has finished in Ravenna without the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate may produce the impression that the Constantinople Patriarchate deliberately pushed the Moscow Patriarchate to withdraw from the dialogue so that decisions should be passed that would have been impossible with the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate. ...
The Patriarchy of Constantinople is extremely interested to discuss the issue of primacy in the Universal Church, because in this Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, it hopes to force Local Churches to interpret the primacy in a way that could extend its historical rights. Until now, Orthodox Churches have acknowledged only priority of honour of the Patriarchy of Constantinople. However, Metropolitan John expresses in his interviews the view point which is inconsistent with the notion of “priority of honour” in the Orthodox canons.
"Constantinople wants to force on us a model of church organization that has never existed in Orthodox tradition and that is closer to the centralized model existing in the Roman Catholic Church. In that model, the patriarch of Constantinople would have the role of the 'Eastern pope.'"
Cardinal Etchegaray: The issue of the ordination of married men "may come about"
Months after the Pope solemnly confirmed that only single men may be ordained to the priesthood in the Latin Church (Sacramentum Caritatis) and in the 40th anniversary of Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (by a Pope who had no fear of innovations), it seems that some simply do not wish this issue to be forgotten:
The question of the ordination of married men "may come about"The question of the ordination of married men to meet the shortage of priests "may come about" according to Cardinal Roger Etchegaray in an interview that appeared Sunday in Le Parisien/Aujourd'hui en France.
"The question may come about. As it already takes place in the Greek Catholic churches," the cardinal replied to the question of whether the ordination of married men could be considered by the French episcopate in response to "the vocation crisis.”
"But we must be clear ... this is not the 'the' solution to the crisis" added the 85 year old prelate who is associate dean of the Sacred College at the Vatican.
In the course of the interview mention was also made of the recent controversy concerning Pope Benedict XVI’s text facilitating the celebration of Mass in Latin.
"The pope has published the text for the sake of the unity of the Church, in hope of bringing back traditionalists. It is not known whether it will work – let's wait" says Roger Etchegaray.
The "motu proprio" of Pope Benedict XVI authorising once again the Mass in Latin was published on 7 July by the Vatican and came into force on 14 September.
The announcement of the return of this practice was the cause of much emotion among the faithful, but in reality few priests have been seized by requests for Mass in Latin since its enactment.
(France Presse/Translation: Mornac)
New Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education
The Holy Father named today Jean-Louis Bruguès, O.P., Bishop of Angers (Maine-et-Loire, near the Vendée), France, new Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education.
Who is Archbishop Bruguès? This French Dominican was a professor at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, for many years, before being named Bishop in 2000.
Some clues regarding his episcopal mind may be found in his reception letter to the faithful of his diocese on Summorum Pontificum, in which he faithfully quoted the legal rights recognized by the motu proprio, but also said:
Some clues regarding his episcopal mind may be found in his reception letter to the faithful of his diocese on Summorum Pontificum, in which he faithfully quoted the legal rights recognized by the motu proprio, but also said:
When Pope Benedict XVI received me last June 2, I informed him of my personal misgivings, as well as those of a great part of you, regarding a text which had been spoken of for many months.
...
We had anticipated, in some way, the present evolution by welcoming, since two years ago, a stable group of faithful attached to the celebration according to the Missal of 1962, in the Church of Notre-Dame-des-Victoires d’Angers. I can nevertheless say from this moment that I will not open personal parishes.
A "compromise might be conceivable"
Bishop Richard Williamson, the most outspoken of the four bishops of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in 1988, included the following words in his latest article:
"To help out the Pope or to restore the good name or canonical status of the SSPX, some compromise might be conceivable, but not if the Faith is at stake...
...
"...there being no other solution possible than some kind of compromise, one may reply that there are problems which man can make and which God alone can solve."
The healing power of the Roman air
From an interview (published yesterday) with the new President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, of the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church, and of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archeology, Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi :
Rome will welcome in the end of this week the international congress of Traditionalist faithful . What is your opinion, as "Culture Minister" of the Vatican, on the Tridentine Mass?
"Extremely favorable. It represents a monument in the history of the Church and of Civilization. How would it be ever possible to disown tradition? It is enough consider, for instance, the nobility of Gregorian Chant and of Latin. It [the Mass] is a gem to be defended and valued. Obviously, the defense of the Tridentine Rite does not entail the exclusion of the 'Novus Ordo' and of a Mass celebrated in the local language. I will say that there are different approaches, but both important."
______
A first step?
A more important objection is of the practical order. Are we really going to re-order everything all over again? Nothing is more harmful to the Liturgy than constant changes, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal.
I see a solution to this in a suggestion I noted at the beginning in connection with the insights of Erik Peterson. Facing toward the East, as we heard, was linked with the "sign of the Son of Man", with the Cross, which announces Our Lord's Second Coming. That is why, very early on, the East was linked with the sign of the cross. Where a direct common turning toward the East is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior "East" of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community.
In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: Conversi ad Dominum, "Turn to the Lord!" In this way we look together at the One whose Death tore the veil of the Temple -- the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in His arms in order to make us the new and living Temple.
Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord?
This mistake should be corrected as quickly as possible; it can be done without further rebuilding. The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of history.
Joseph Ratzinger
The Spirit of the Liturgy
The Spirit of the Liturgy
Ranjith speaks: Episcopal "rebellion" going on;
"Bishops and Cardinals" must obey the Pope
From an interview granted by the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige, to Bruno Volpe, of the papal news website Petrus:
Your Excellency, how has Benedict XVI´s motu proprio which liberalized the Holy Mass according to the Tridentine Rite been received? Some, in the bosom of the Church itself, have turned their noses...
"There have been positive reactions and, it is useless to deny it, criticisms and opposition , even from theologians, liturgists, priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals. I frankly do not understand these rifts, and, why not [say it], rebellion towards the Pope. I invite all, particularly the Shepherds, to obey the Pope, who is the Successor of Peter. The Bishops, in particular, have sworn fidelity to the Pontiff: may they be coherent and faithful to their commitment."
In your opinion, what causes these displays against the Motu Proprio?
"You know that there have been, by some dioceses, even interpretative documents which inexplainably intend to limit the Pope's Motu Proprio. These actions mask behind them, on one hand, prejudices of an ideological kind and, on the other, pride, one of the gravest sins. I repeat: I invite all to obey the Pope. If the Holy father decided to promulgate the Motu Proprio, he had his reasons, which I fully share."
Benedict XVI´s decision to liberalize the Tridentine Rite seems as a just remedy to the so many liturgical abuses sadly registered after the Second Vatican Council with the 'Novus Ordo'...
"See, I do not wish to criticize the 'Novus Ordo'. But I laugh when I hear it said, even by friends, that in a [certain] parish, a priest is 'a Saint' due to his homily or to how he speaks. The Holy Mass is sacrifice, gift, mystery, independently of the celebrating priest. It is important, fundamental even, that the priest be put aside: the protagonist of the Mass is Christ. I do not understand, thus, the Eucharistic celebrations transformed in shows with dances, songs, and applause, as it frequently happens with the Novus Ordo."
Monsignor Patabendige, your Congregation has repeatedly denounced these liturgical abuses...
"True. There are so many documents, which have nonetheless painfully remained dead letter, [which] have ended up on dusty shelves or, even worse, in wastebaskets."
Another point: one often hears very long homilies...
"This also is an abuse. I am opposed to dances and applause in the middle of the Masses, which are not a circus or a stadium. As for the homilies, they must relate, as the Pope has underlined, exclusively to the catechetical aspect, avoiding sociologisms and useless chatter. For example, priests often veer towards politics because they have not prepared well the homily, which must, instead, be scrupulously studied. An excessively long homily is synonymous with a scarce preparation: the correct time for a sermon must be of 10 minutes, 15 at most. It must be acknowledged that the culminating moment of the celebration is the Eucharistic mystery, which does not mean downplaying the Liturgy of the Word, but clarifying how a correct liturgy must be applied."
Returning to the Motu Proprio: some criticize the use of Latin during Mass...
"The Tridentine Rite is part of the tradition of the Church. The Pope has dutifully explained the motives for his measure, an act of liberty and justice towards Traditionalists. As for Latin, I wish to underline that it has never been abolished and, what is more, it guarantees the universality of the Church. But I repeat: I invite priests, Bishops, and Cardinals to obedience, setting aside every kind of pride and prejudice."
You report: Traditional Masses around the World - IV
We are extremely grateful for our (apparently numerous) Brazilian readers who have been keeping us informed of the vast influence which the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum has had in the most important dioceses in the nation with the largest number of nominal Catholics in the world. Considering that the great majority of Brazilians live in the larger cities and metropolitan areas, it is clear that, after Summorum Pontificum, a large number of Brazilian Catholics have the Traditional Mass in their own dioceses or at least in a neighboring diocese.
A reader from the large city of Curitiba, in the southern part of that country, sends us this report, with pictures:
In Curitiba, southern Brazil, the very first church built there in 1737, Igreja da Ordem, is having once again, after many decades, the extraordinary form or the Roman Rite, with the attendance of some 200 people every Sunday, mostly young people and young families.
We have a choir singing Gregorian Chant and the participation of everyone is truly beautiful, for we are all learning together the responses, the chants, everything. Our priest, a very holy monsignor, keeps applauding the congregation’s efforts in participating fully in our Traditional Mass.In another church in Curitiba, a daily Traditional Mass is also available since the Motu Proprio, celebrated by a wonderful Italian priest.We are deeply thankful to our Holy Father Benedict XVI! Deo gratias!
Dear readers, please keep sending us reports on Traditional Masses in your diocese and on the impact Summorum Pontificum has had in your local Church.
The new Papal MC in action
According to Paolo Luigi Rodari, religious correspondent for Il Riformista, the first Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict with Monsignor Guido Marini as his Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations will take place next Monday, November 5, 2007 - the yearly Mass for the souls of Cardinals and Bishops deceased during the preceding year.
You report: Traditional Masses around the world - III
When Pope Benedict visited Brazil last May, he was a guest of the Abbey of Our Lady of the Assumption in São Paulo, known simply as "Monastery of Saint Benedict". Since the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum went into effect, a Traditional Mass has been celebrated in the abbatial church every Sunday. A reader reports:
Since September 16th, 2007, every Sunday the bells of the abbatial church of Saint Benedict's Monastery, in São Paulo, have rung again, calling the faithful to the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. [Pictures of the September 16th Mass here].
Accompanied by a Gregorian Choir and the attendance of about 400 people every week, the Priest kneels before the old altar and everyone listens his sweet and confident voice: "Introibo ad altare Dei"...
The Monastery that received Benedict XVI in his first visit to Brazil as a Pope witnesses now the practical result of his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Each Sunday, at 6 PM, the Old Rite is celebrated and we hope that this decision may bring many Catholics to the beauty and glory of the Holy Church.
New confirmation of old news
In the current issue of Italian news weekly Panorama, Ignazio Ingrao confirms some news we had already reported here:
-(1) a document is being prepared by the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" explaining some points of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, including what criteria may be used to identify a stably existing group (no specific minimum number) and clarifications regarding the differences between the calendars of both forms of the Roman Rite - the document may be published, according to Ingrao, "in the next few days";
-(2) the possibility of a traditional Mass celebrated by the Pope in December (according to Ingrao, not in Saint Peter's, but maybe in Saint Paul Outside the Walls);
-(3) the probability that the excommunications of the Bishops involved in the consecrations of June 30, 1988, in Ecône, Switzerland may soon be lifted.
On the Feast of Christ the King...
The Che-suits
On the traditional day of the Feast of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King, as 498 Catholic martyrs killed by Socialist militias in Spain in 1934, 1936, and 1937 were beatified in Rome, a reminder of the depth of the crisis in the Church:
An image of Christ crucified on a hammer and sickle, from the ad for spiritual exercises promoted by the Jesuits of Cochabamba, Bolivia.
An image of Christ crucified on a hammer and sickle, from the ad for spiritual exercises promoted by the Jesuits of Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Moved by hatred: the words of an enemy of the motu proprio - II
Fr Manlio Sodi, SDB, is one of the most influential "liturgists" in Italy - his name is widely mentioned from diocesan seminaries to documents of liturgical committees. His scholarly expertise is to be commended - yet, it does not mean that he is a man who loves truth. That is why he has chosen to dedicate himself to the Traditional liturgical books of the Roman Rite, and why he was chosen to write the introductions to all four reprints (the Missale, the Breviarium, the Rituale, and the Pontificale) to be published by the Vatican Publishing House (Libreria Editrice Vaticana) itself: he can then become the most authoritative source for the interpretation of documents he truly hates.
In the very first page of his book "The Missal of Pius V: Why the Latin Mass in the Third Millennium?", Sodi affirms (notice: the book was given imprimatur on July 12, five days after Summorum Pontificum - and Summorum Pontificum is the object of a whole chapter of the book) that the Missal of John XXIII was abrogated:
In the very first page of his book "The Missal of Pius V: Why the Latin Mass in the Third Millennium?", Sodi affirms (notice: the book was given imprimatur on July 12, five days after Summorum Pontificum - and Summorum Pontificum is the object of a whole chapter of the book) that the Missal of John XXIII was abrogated:
"The last edition of the Tridentine Missal was prepared under the pontificate of Blessed John XXIII, in 1962: it was to consolidate the last reforms effected by Pius XII in 1951 and 1955, in view of the Code of rubrics. It was this Missal which was abrogated with the publication of the Missal of 1970.
...
It would seem a strange thing: today, when Latin is not understood or studied anymore as it used to be, some ask, and even with forcefulness, for the return to a liturgy entirely in Latin, and even more, according to a rite which was abolished with the publication of the Missal of Paul VI"
"Abrogated"? For some reason, though he dedicated a whole chapter to Summorum Pontificum, Sodi decided to keep this false information on the first page of his book. As is well known, "the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962" was "never abrogated" (nunquam abrogatam - cf. Summorum Pontificum, art. 1).
It is also clear that Sodi wishes to put all the "blame" of the Missal of Blessed John XXIII on that "terrible" Pope, Pius XII: it is true, the 1962 Missal consolidates the alterations made since the Pontificate of Benedict XV, but the main changes were the ones determined by the Code of Rubrics itself - which, not mentioned by Sodi in this text destined to the general public, had been published in 1960 by Blessed Pope John as a work of his Pontificate. The Codex Rubricarum put in place by the motu proprio Rubricarum Instructum could not be published only as a supplement (as it had been the case with the reformed Holy Week), because every single Sunday and Feast had to be reclassified under the new "Class" system.
The information on what Pope was responsible for the new Code of Rubrics is very important for historical reasons: it seems unreasonable that Pope John would set a new Code of Rubrics which required a whole new edition of the Roman Missal only to have it completely disregarded in less than a decade.
_____________
More on the absurdities written by Fr Sodi on the chapter dedicated to Summorum Pontificum in the third part of this series.
It is also clear that Sodi wishes to put all the "blame" of the Missal of Blessed John XXIII on that "terrible" Pope, Pius XII: it is true, the 1962 Missal consolidates the alterations made since the Pontificate of Benedict XV, but the main changes were the ones determined by the Code of Rubrics itself - which, not mentioned by Sodi in this text destined to the general public, had been published in 1960 by Blessed Pope John as a work of his Pontificate. The Codex Rubricarum put in place by the motu proprio Rubricarum Instructum could not be published only as a supplement (as it had been the case with the reformed Holy Week), because every single Sunday and Feast had to be reclassified under the new "Class" system.
The information on what Pope was responsible for the new Code of Rubrics is very important for historical reasons: it seems unreasonable that Pope John would set a new Code of Rubrics which required a whole new edition of the Roman Missal only to have it completely disregarded in less than a decade.
_____________
More on the absurdities written by Fr Sodi on the chapter dedicated to Summorum Pontificum in the third part of this series.
Moved by hatred: the words of an enemy of the motu proprio - I
Almost four months after the publication of Summorum Pontificum, the only book on the motu proprio for sale at the John Paul II International Bookstore (the Vatican bookstore at Piazza San Pietro), still is "The Missal of Pius V: Why the Latin Mass in the Third Millennium?", by Manlio Sodi, SDB, published by Edizioni Messaggero, the publishing house of the shrine of Saint Anthony, in Padua.
The work is extremely critical - to say the very least - of the motu proprio. Throughout this Saturday, we will publish translations of excerpts of this disgraceful book, written by one of the most influential "liturgists" in Italy - a man deeply committed to the Bugninist mafia still occupying the most unexpected places in the Vatican machinery, and charged by the Vatican Publishing House itself with the scholarly introductions to the academic editions of the liturgical books of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
The work is extremely critical - to say the very least - of the motu proprio. Throughout this Saturday, we will publish translations of excerpts of this disgraceful book, written by one of the most influential "liturgists" in Italy - a man deeply committed to the Bugninist mafia still occupying the most unexpected places in the Vatican machinery, and charged by the Vatican Publishing House itself with the scholarly introductions to the academic editions of the liturgical books of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
Don Guido speaks: Motu proprio "an act of justice"
From the wonderful interview granted by Monsignor Guido Marini, the new Master of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies - and a man who is not afraid to follow rules - to Bruno Volpe (Petrus):
Monsignor, first of all, welcome and good work...
"Thank you for the wishes, I truly need them. You know, I have been in Rome for a very short time, and I look around, I study, I reflect: there is so much to do and to toil, believe me."
So it goes from one Marini...to another: what do you say to Piero, your predecessor?
"I thank him from my heart. He gave so much to the Church, he served two Popes, and I find myself only at the beginning of my path."
You have been called to a difficult job...
"Certainly. The life of every head of liturgical ceremonies of the Holy Father is filled with problems. We are under the limelights, we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of making great mistakes."
Many have claimed that you were called because [you are] liturgically more traditionalist and sober than Archbishop Piero Marini. But what is your conception of the liturgy?
"[It is] as the Church wishes and teaches, not more and not less. I am not the kind of person who looks for inventions and oddities. I may even seem banal, but the liturgy is respect to the rules laid down by the Church, and I see no reason for which I should disobey it."
It is said precisely that in Genoa, where you worked up to now, the liturgy was well cared for, sober and elegant, without bizarre adornments...
"But liturgy is naturally thus. I repeat: no one can act against the liturgical laws of the Church. The Mass is a gift, a grace, not a show. Therefore, no invention, but absolute respect for liturgical rules."
Pope Benedict XVI, other than a great theologian, is also a fine liturgist. He attributes to the liturgy, [when] correctly executed, a notable relevance...
"Working together with the Holy Father will be a grace for me. The popularity of the Pontiff, his preaching of truth and courage, are before the eyes of all. Regarding the liturgy, I completely share the thesis of the Pope: the Mass is Sacrifice."
In your opinion, have there been liturgical abuses recently?
"You know, the Church is large. But, as the Pontiff himself recognized in the accompanying letter to the Motu Proprio 'Summorum Pontificum', there have been abuses and extravagant interpretations. What I can say is that certainly I will not be the author of any fabrication, I will limit myself to scrupulously apply the existing rules."
By the way, what do you think of the Motu Proprio which has liberalized the Mass in the Tridentine Rite?
I agree with the Motu Proprio 100%; [it is] an act of good sense, of justice, of freedom, and of foresight.
"Il Concilio non ne parla"
From the excerpts of Cardinal Biffi's book, Memorie e digressioni di un italiano cardinale (Cantagalli, 2007) , published online by Sandro Magister, with some corrections:
There were just a few statements of [Pope John XXIII] that I found puzzling. And these were precisely the ones that won over hearts and minds more than any others, because they seemed consistent with people's instinctive aspirations.
There was, for example, his judgment of reproof on the "prophets of doom." [At the opening speech of the Second Vatican Council, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia: At Nobis plane dissentiendum esse videtur ab his rerum adversarum vaticinatoribus, qui deteriora semper praenuntiant, quasi rerum exitium instet.].
The expression became, and remained, extremely popular, and naturally so: the people do not like party poopers; they prefer those who promise good times over those who advance fears and reservations. And I, too, admired the courage and drive, during the last years of his life, of this "young" successor of Peter.
But I recall that a sense of perplexity seized me almost immediately. In the history of Revelation, the true prophets were the ones who usually announced chastisements and calamities, as in Isaiah (chapter 24), Jeremiah (chapter 4), and Ezekiel (chapters 4-11).
Jesus himself, in chapter 24 of the Gospel of Matthew, would have to be counted among the "prophets of doom": his proclamation of future triumphs and impending joys do not usually relate to existence here on earth, but rather to "eternal life" and the "Kingdom of Heaven."
But the people in the Bible who usually proclaim the imminence of tranquil and serene times are, instead, the false prophets (see chapter 13 of the Book of Ezekiel).
The statement from John XXIII is explained by his state of mind at the time, but it should not be made absolute. On the contrary, it would be well to listen also to those who have some reason to alert their brothers, preparing them for possible trials, and those who believe it is opportune to issue calls for prudence and vigilance.
...
The Christian people must be put on guard and defended against those who actually sow error, without ceasing to seek out his true well-being, and without judging anyone's subjective responsibility, which is known to God alone.
The Silent Council
Communism: the Council does not address this. If one attentively scans the comprehensive index, it is stunning to confront this categorical silence.
Communism was, without a doubt, the most imposing, enduring, pervasive historical phenomenon of the twentieth century; and the Council, despite having proposed a Constitution on the Church and the modern world, does not speak of it.
Beginning with its triumph in Russia in 1917, after half a century communism had succeeded in causing many tens of millions of deaths, the victims of mass terror and the most inhuman repression; and the Council does not speak of it.
Communism (for the first time in the history of human folly) had practically imposed atheism upon the populations subjected to it, as a sort of official philosophy and a paradoxical "religion of the state"; and the Council, although it addresses the case of atheists, does not speak of it.
During the same years when the ecumenical council sessions were being held, the communist prisons were still places of unspeakable sufferings and humiliations inflicted upon numerous "witnesses of the faith" (bishops, priests, devoted lay believers in Christ); and the Council does not speak of it.
A conversation with Pope John Paul II
...I also felt prompted to add a reservation of a pastoral nature: the unheard-of initiative of asking pardon for the errors and inconsistencies of past centuries would, in my view, scandalize the "little ones," those most favored by Jesus (cf. Matthew 11:25): because the faithful, who do not know how to make many theological distinctions, would see these self-accusations as a threat against their serene adhesion to the ecclesial mystery, which (as all the professions of faith tell us) is essentially a mystery of sanctity.
And these were the very words of the pope's reply: "Yes, that is true. That will require some thought." Unfortunately, he did not think about it enough.
In the Conclave of 2005
I would like to tell the future pope to pay attention to all problems. But first and most of all, he should take into account the state of confusion, disorientation, and aimlessness that afflicts the people of God in these years, and above all the 'little ones'.
A few days ago, I saw on television an elderly, devout religious sister who responded to the interviewer this way: 'This pope, who has died, was great above all because he taught us that all religions are equal'. I don't know whether John Paul II would have been very pleased by this sort of elegy.
Finally, I would like to point out to the new pope the incredible phenomenon of 'Dominus Iesus': a document explicitly endorsed and publicly approved by John Paul II; a document for which I am pleased to express my vibrant gratitude to Cardinal Ratzinger. That Jesus is the only necessary Savior of all is a truth that for over twenty centuries - beginning with Peter's discourse after Pentecost - it was never felt necessity to restate. This truth is, so to speak, the minimum threshold of the faith; it is the primordial certitude, it is among believers the simple and most essential fact. In two thousand years this has never been brought into doubt, not even during the crisis of Arianism, and not even during the upheaval of the Protestant Reformation. The fact of needing to issue a reminder of this in our time tells us the extent of the gravity of the current situation. And yet this document, which recalls the most basic, most simple, most essential certitude, has been called into question. It has been contested at all levels: at all levels of pastoral action, of theological instruction, of the hierarchy.
A good Catholic told me about asking his pastor to let him make a presentation of 'Dominus Iesus' to the parish community. The pastor (an otherwise excellent and well-intentioned priest) replied to him: 'Let it go. That's a document that divides.' What a discovery! Jesus himself said: 'I have come to bring division' (Luke 12:51).
The Passion of Spain
The Beatification of 498 Martyrs
With the approval on June 1, 2007, by the Holy Father, of the decrees of recognition of martyrdom of two other groups of Spanish Martyrs, the number of martyrs -- of 1934 (Asturias Rebellion) and of 1936 and 1937 (persecution of Catholics during the Spanish Civil War) -- to be beatified this year rises to 498.
Due to the great significance of the mass beatification (which is the result of 23 different causes, carefully studied for decades in Spain and in Rome), the Spanish episcopate asked the Holy Father to allow the ceremony to take place in Rome, as the measures taken by Pope Benedict at the beginning of his pontificate exceptionally allow. The petition was granted and the beatification ceremony will be held on October 28, 2007 (Feast of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King in the only calendar which all the Martyrs knew, a feast which had been established in 1925 by the very Pope reigning at the time of their glorious martyrdom).
The entire list of 498 martyrs is available here and includes several names already mentioned by us in the past, also including Bishops Narciso Estenaga Echevarría, of Ciudad Real, and Cruz Laplana y Laguna, of Cuenca, as well as some of the most famous martyrs of the greatest massacre of Catholics in the 20th Century (Paracuellos de Jarama), the Augustinians of the Royal Monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial (included in the Cause for Beatification 13).
Due to the great significance of the mass beatification (which is the result of 23 different causes, carefully studied for decades in Spain and in Rome), the Spanish episcopate asked the Holy Father to allow the ceremony to take place in Rome, as the measures taken by Pope Benedict at the beginning of his pontificate exceptionally allow. The petition was granted and the beatification ceremony will be held on October 28, 2007 (Feast of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King in the only calendar which all the Martyrs knew, a feast which had been established in 1925 by the very Pope reigning at the time of their glorious martyrdom).
The entire list of 498 martyrs is available here and includes several names already mentioned by us in the past, also including Bishops Narciso Estenaga Echevarría, of Ciudad Real, and Cruz Laplana y Laguna, of Cuenca, as well as some of the most famous martyrs of the greatest massacre of Catholics in the 20th Century (Paracuellos de Jarama), the Augustinians of the Royal Monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial (included in the Cause for Beatification 13).
Largest Catholic publisher in Italy prints hand missal
The largest Catholic publisher in Italy, Edizioni San Paolo (the Italian branch of the Society of Saint Paul's publishing house, St. Pauls), has just released a brand new simple hand missal for the laity.
Ordo Missae includes the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin and Italian, common prayers, and the rite of Benediction in the ancient rite.
Ordo Missae includes the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin and Italian, common prayers, and the rite of Benediction in the ancient rite.
_________________
Tip: Anonymous reader.
Tip: Anonymous reader.
Fellay speaks: I am confident
From an interview granted by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) to Paolo Luigi Rodari, in Il Riformista:
Fellay... has often been defined as the head of the more moderate wing of the Lefebvrists. The opposite of Bishop Richard Williamson, who would represent the more intransigent wing in the Fraternity, that [wing] of the "never and never again" regarding a compromise with Rome.
"Nothing could be falser - Fellay explains it -, Williamson and I are on the same line, that which believes that we could hardly re-enter a Church as is. And the reasons are quite simple. Benedict XVI has indeed liberalized the ancient rite, but I cannot explain for what reason he made such a decision if he then allows the majority of Bishops to criticize and disobey him regarding what he determined. What should we do? Re-enter the Church and then be insulted by all those people?"
And more: "Other than the ancient rite, the problem for us is in the words which Benedict XVI dedicated to Vatican II. We have read his wish to put in place an exegesis of continuity. But it seems to me that no concrete actions have followed this desire. because the rupture with the past is directly related, unfortunately, to some texts of Vatican II and these texts are what should be, in some way, reviewed. In the interview which opens the book of Cardinal Leo Scheffczyk, 'The World of Catholic Faith: Truth and Form', he [Benedict] declares that after the Council he was too fearful regarding the colleagues devoted to a clear line of openness to the world. That is fine, but, concretely, what actions does he intend to pursue to fix it?"
That is to say, Ratzinger should ready himself for a direct revision of the Conciliar texts, and not only for a denunciation of an incorrect hermeneutic. "Let us take, for instance - Fellay says - the declaration Dignitatis Humanae dedicated to religious liberty. In it, the Church places itself in a position of subjection regarding a civil authority that must assure it the right to free expression. Yet in my opinion it should be the opposite: it is the State which must submit to the Catholic faith and recognize it as the State religion."
If the liturgy is the heart of the dissent of the Lefebvrists regarding Rome, the divergences seem to have a wider scope which the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum can not solve by itself. "I - Fellay concludes - have met Benedict XVI only once, in the summer of 2005. From that day onward, I have kept an intense exchange of letters with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of Ecclesia Dei. But there still is no common working document. I am nevertheless confident because all our dealings have otherwise been excellent."
Ricard speaks: on talks between Rome and the SSPX
Cardinal Ricard, the Archbishop of Bordeaux and President of the French Episcopal Conference (CEF) is in Naples for the interreligious meeting promoted by the Community of Sant'Egidio. He spoke to Italian papal news website Petrus on future prospects regarding the dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX):
Are there contacts between French Bishops or the Vatican with the followers of Lefebvre?
"In France, there are not official 'negotiations'," Ricard explains, "even if there may be contacts. There is something with Rome, but it is, in any case, discreet."
"I believe that Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos and, certainly, also the Pope desired to advance as far as possible in an eventual reconciliation with the Fraternity of Saint Pius X. But the Pope - Ricard details - knows that there are non-negotiable points. He is certainly in favor of dialogue and exchange [of ideas], but he wishes, despite the disagreement on specific points, to erase the caricatures and distortions and to discern the true difficulties, if any exist."
Fastest turnaround in the history of a Publishing House
As we revealed yesterday, it seems that the new director of the Vatican Publishing House (Libreria Editrice Vaticana-LEV), Don Giuseppe Costa, SDB, did not really know what he was saying when he declared, 18 days ago, in an answer to the question, "have you reprinted the Missal of 1962?"
"We have not reprinted anything, only the motu proprio. The eventual reprints depend on the episcopal conferences. If these do not demand it, we reprint it, but if there no such demand, we do not reprint it; no demands have arrived so far."
The series "Monumenta Liturgica Piana", at the care of Manlio Sodi, SDB, and Alessandro Toniolo, started with this year's volume, the Missale Romanum (1962) - surprised, Don Giuseppe? The Pontificale Romanum (Editio typica 1961-1962) is in the process of being printed. The Breviarium Romanum (1962), in one volume (Totum), will probably be published in 2008, and the Rituale Romanum (1952), probably in 2009.
Exactly as La Croix had reported three days after the publication of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum...
Exactly as La Croix had reported three days after the publication of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum...
You report: Traditional Masses around the world - II
A report from Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia:
Over here in Australia, in a small country city called Wangaratta, I started a group with a few other people in Sep. 06 and we called ourselves the Wangaratta Latin Mass Society.
After writing to our bishop requesting a mass on a permanent basis the Bishop only allowed us Mass once a month but to only to be offered on a weekday. Of course we were quite upset with the regulations set out by our Bishop, so imagine the joy we felt when His Holiness Pope Benedict released the long awaited Motu Propio.
Not long after the Motu Propio I wrote to our Bishop again requesting a personal Parish (Article 5 SP). Whilst not allowing this to take place he gave us permission to use a beautiful chapel here in Wangaratta and also seek a Priest to service us on a full time basis from one of the Fraternities that offer the Extraordinary Form exclusively.
On October 13 we had a Procession through Wangaratta in honor of the 90th anniversary of Our Lady’s apparitions at Fatima and also we had our first Mass at our Chapel (Delaney Chapel) celebrated by a Diocesan Priest, Fr. Leo Hynes. This Mass and Procession was very well attended with over 50 people, young and old with also about 30 apologies from those who couldn’t make it. They all look forward to assisting at the Traditional Mass in the future. I know the Wangaratta Latin Mass Society will grow, the amount of young people we are attracting is very positive for the future of this Society.
We like to thank Our Bishop, Joseph Grech and also His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for making this so available to us.
Keep them coming, dear readers!
LEV to publish Missal of 1962?
It seems that the Vatican Publishing House (Libreria Editrice Vaticana-LEV), despite the previous declaration of its director, will publish a facsimile reprint of the Missale Romanum (Editio Typica 1962), with introduction.
It is not clear if it will be a mere reprint of the Study Edition published in 1994, with an introduction by Cuthbert Johnson, OSB, and Anthony Ward, SM (Centro Liturgico Vicenziano).
Source: Liturgia.it
It is not clear if it will be a mere reprint of the Study Edition published in 1994, with an introduction by Cuthbert Johnson, OSB, and Anthony Ward, SM (Centro Liturgico Vicenziano).
Source: Liturgia.it
Happy and happier
Pope Benedict received in scheduled private audience his new Master of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies, Monsignor Guido Marini, last Thursday.
You report: Traditional Masses around the world
We start this series of "You report" with reports of two Traditional Masses in two very different places: the Catholic world is united by the same Latin Mass.
_______________________
A written report from Front Royal, Virginia.
A written report from Front Royal, Virginia.
The Arlington Diocese was one of two in the country that had not gone in for altar girls in parishes, so there were none. Also, in my parish (Saint John the Baptist) as well as several others, over the years petitions were signed asking the Bishop to permit the Tridentine Mass in the parish. He did not, until the Spring of 2006, when the Bishop published this letter.
Our pastor said "no" to altar girls, first of all. But right away after the Bishop's letter came out, both the pastor and parochial vicar took a very serious and sincere approach to learning how properly to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. They got help from FSSP, among other sources. And our parochial vicar gave a class on the Traditional Latin Mass to any parishioners who cared to come.
Our pastor obtained permission from the Bishop to install an altar rail; we got a beautiful custom-made hand-crafted rail made of cherry wood. The parish purchased copies of the Latin-English Traditional Latin Mass booklet from Coalition in Support of Ecclesia Dei, and these were placed in all the pews, once for each Missalette and St. Michael Hymnal.
Since then, attendance at the weekly Traditional Latin Mass, at 12:30 PM every Sunday, has been quite regular and large. Our church holds 475 in the pews; I'd say at least 300 come to that 12:30 Mass each week, including a number from other parishes. There is one High Mass per month, the rest are Low Masses, but all are very well attended. especially the High Mass. In fact I would say attendance has been increasing, even during the summer months! Most recently, we have had guest priests from FSSP offering our 12:30 Mass. But both our pastor and our parochial vicar have been to Nebraska to get further training, and from the start they have both done a wonderful job of offering our Tridentine Masses.
This past Sunday it was announced that on October 28, Feast of Christ the King in the Old Calendar, our parish will offer a Solemn High Mass. I am very much looking forward to that.
_______________________
A photo-report from Natal, in northeastern Brazil
A photo-report from Natal, in northeastern Brazil
The old church of Our Lady of the Rosary (Nossa Senhora do Rosário) was built in 1706, especially for the service of Catholic slaves and the poorest in Brazilian colonial society.
Countless burials of baptized slaves took place in its grounds, in what then were the outer limits of the town.
This very simple church had not witnessed a Traditional Latin Mass in decades,but thanks to the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite has returned to this building.
For readers anywhere in the world who happen to stop in this corner of South America, our Masses will take place every Sunday, 9 AM local time.
Thank you, Pope Benedict! And please pray for our small community.
____________________
Recess for a few days: relevant news may be posted at any time.
Recess for a few days: relevant news may be posted at any time.
New Cardinals
Roman Curia: Sandri (Oriental Churches), Foley (Order of the Sepulcher), Lajolo (Governatorate), Cordes (Cor Unum), Comastri (Archpriest of St.Peter's), Rylko (Laity), Farina (Archivist and Librarian).
Episcopal Sees around the world: García-Gasco y Vicente (Valencia, Spain), Brady (Armagh, Ireland), Martínez Sistach (Barcelona, Spain), Vingt-Trois (Paris, France), Bagnasco (Genoa, Italy), Sahre (Dakar, Senegal), Gracias (Bombay, India), Robles Ortega (Monterrey, Mexico), DiNardo (Galveston-Houston, United States), Scherer (São Paulo, Brazil), Njue (Nairobi, Kenya).
Non-voting Cardinals: Emmanuel III Delly (Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans), Giovanni Coppa (Apostolic Nuncio), Estanislao Esteban Karlic (Emeritus of Paraná, Argentina), Father Urbano Navarrete, S.I. (former Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University), and Father Umberto Betti, O.F.M. (former rector of the Pontifical Lateran University).
Episcopal Sees around the world: García-Gasco y Vicente (Valencia, Spain), Brady (Armagh, Ireland), Martínez Sistach (Barcelona, Spain), Vingt-Trois (Paris, France), Bagnasco (Genoa, Italy), Sahre (Dakar, Senegal), Gracias (Bombay, India), Robles Ortega (Monterrey, Mexico), DiNardo (Galveston-Houston, United States), Scherer (São Paulo, Brazil), Njue (Nairobi, Kenya).
Non-voting Cardinals: Emmanuel III Delly (Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans), Giovanni Coppa (Apostolic Nuncio), Estanislao Esteban Karlic (Emeritus of Paraná, Argentina), Father Urbano Navarrete, S.I. (former Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University), and Father Umberto Betti, O.F.M. (former rector of the Pontifical Lateran University).
Consistory on November 24, eve of the Feast of Christ the King in the Calendar of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
Most names had been mentioned for several weeks.
Most names had been mentioned for several weeks.
Archbishop Ranjith's address in the Netherlands:
FULL TEXT
______________________________
FAITH, OBEDIENCE AND THEOLOGY
Challenges to the Mission of the Church today
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,
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.
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
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
TEXT KINDLY PROVIDED BY
The Association for Latin Liturgy (in the Netherlands)
Vereniging voor Latijnse Liturgie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)